Yugoslavia question

[FJeff]

Pure Internet Gold!

ORIGINAL: SerbiaStrong

REMOVE KEBAB remove kebab
you are worst turk. you are the turk idiot you are the turk smell. return to croatioa. to our croatia cousins you may come our contry. you may live in the zoo….ahahahaha ,bosnia we will never forgeve you. cetnik rascal FUck but fuck asshole turk stink bosnia sqhipere shqipare..turk genocide best day of my life. take a bath of dead turk..ahahahahahBOSNIA WE WILL GET YOU!! do not forget ww2 .albiania we kill the king , albania return to your precious mongolia….hahahahaha idiot turk and bosnian smell so bad..wow i can smell it. REMOVE KEBAB FROM THE PREMISES. you will get caught. russia+usa+croatia+slovak=kill bosnia…you will ww2/ tupac alive in serbia, tupac making album of serbia . fast rap tupac serbia. we are rich and have gold now hahahaha ha because of tupac… you are ppoor stink turk… you live in a hovel hahahaha, you live in a yurt

tupac alive numbr one #1 in serbia ….fuck the croatia ,..FUCKk ashol turks no good i spit in the mouth eye of ur flag and contry. 2pac aliv and real strong wizard kill all the turk farm aminal with rap magic now we the serba rule .ape of the zoo presidant georg bush fukc the great satan and lay egg this egg hatch and bosnia wa;s born. stupid baby form the eggn give bak our clay we will crush u lik a skull of pig. serbia greattst countrey

[Extraneous]

[8D] "The 'Fish' Cheer / I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die Rag" [8D]

by Country Joe and the Fish from their 1967 eponymous album.

[:D] My replacement company sang that as we boarded the plane to the Southeast Asia War Games in 1970. [:D]

Gimme a F (Audience F)
Gimme a I (Audience I)
Gimme a S (Audience S)
Gimme a H (Audience H)

Whats that spell? (Audience FISH)
Whats that spell? (Audience FISH)

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: SerbiaStrong

REMOVE KEBAB remove kebab
you are worst turk. you are the turk idiot you are the turk smell. return to croatioa. to our croatia cousins you may come our contry. you may live in the zoo….ahahahaha ,bosnia we will never forgeve you. cetnik rascal FUck but fuck asshole turk stink bosnia sqhipere shqipare..turk genocide best day of my life. take a bath of dead turk..ahahahahahBOSNIA WE WILL GET YOU!! do not forget ww2 .albiania we kill the king , albania return to your precious mongolia….hahahahaha idiot turk and bosnian smell so bad..wow i can smell it. REMOVE KEBAB FROM THE PREMISES. you will get caught. russia+usa+croatia+slovak=kill bosnia…you will ww2/ tupac alive in serbia, tupac making album of serbia . fast rap tupac serbia. we are rich and have gold now hahahaha ha because of tupac… you are ppoor stink turk… you live in a hovel hahahaha, you live in a yurt

tupac alive numbr one #1 in serbia ….fuck the croatia ,..FUCKk ashol turks no good i spit in the mouth eye of ur flag and contry. 2pac aliv and real strong wizard kill all the turk farm aminal with rap magic now we the serba rule .ape of the zoo presidant georg bush fukc the great satan and lay egg this egg hatch and bosnia wa;s born. stupid baby form the eggn give bak our clay we will crush u lik a skull of pig. serbia greattst countrey

Yep...totally fair enough. REMOVE KEBAB [:D]

Neilster

[Xenocide]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

Like I said there were political considerations in RL that effected the behaviors of the major powers in the war. Some of these behaviors were set long before the war started. While others were decided just before war occured, like the MR pact and the Allies garrentee of Poland. So I am just trying to understand why some ahidtorical behavior is acceptable while other behavior has to follow the historical pattern. It does seem that DoD will help in that regard, just like HoI III allows similar changes since you can start in 1936.

The point I was trying to make (and may not be too successful lol) is that if ahistorical behavior is allowed that is too far from historical plasuability for September 1939 then why not allow the full range of ahistorical behavior than just a few parts? It just seems that a lot of the historical pros and cons of doing things too differently were not addressed, like the Allies delcaring on Belgium versus Germany. Nothing in the game will prevent this other than a small chance of a delay in US entry. This seems like just a small price to pay for such a huge deviation from history. Yet the US will enter the war no matter what the Axis do. So if the Allies can deviate this far from historical considerations with such a small cost, should there not be some way to prevent US entry by the Axis?

I hope this makes things clearier [:)]

The problem is that things like the MR pact were in place before the scenario begins. In many ways I think that WiF allows too many ahistorical possibilities that would have never have been historically considered (Britain invading Portugal in '39 in violation of a non-aggression pact comes to mind).

WiF is also designed to be reasonably balanced. If there was a way for the Axis to keep the US out of the war they would do it and win almost every game. I would argue that historically the only sure way to keep the US out of the war would be to not start the war in the first place.

Seconding you may want to try DoD. It can be seen as a situation generator for World War II. The downside is that it often leads to unbalanced scenarios and can end in 1938 with a whisper if one side is beaten badly early. It can be fun but it needs at least 3 players to play well and ideally needs 6 or more so each nation is actually working for it's own self-interest.

[Klydon]

I think people need to be careful before knighting the Allies as terrific guys with white hats. They have their own shameful moments, but a lot of those sort of get swept under the rug. (History is written by the victors after all). Don't get me wrong, the Allies were "the good guys" in this, but they had their shameful moments as well.

While some things may seem out there to us after nearly 75 years, at the time most of the Allies knew they were in a dog fight for survival and were willing to consider many things they normally would not consider in order to win. Germany beat Britain/France in providing Norway with "security forces" to "save them" from the other side. Now granted Norway was a bit more involved than a country like Portugal since they were shipping the ore from Swedish mines overland to be shipped to Germany, but that is another story..

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Xenocide

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

Like I said there were political considerations in RL that effected the behaviors of the major powers in the war. Some of these behaviors were set long before the war started. While others were decided just before war occured, like the MR pact and the Allies garrentee of Poland. So I am just trying to understand why some ahidtorical behavior is acceptable while other behavior has to follow the historical pattern. It does seem that DoD will help in that regard, just like HoI III allows similar changes since you can start in 1936.

The point I was trying to make (and may not be too successful lol) is that if ahistorical behavior is allowed that is too far from historical plasuability for September 1939 then why not allow the full range of ahistorical behavior than just a few parts? It just seems that a lot of the historical pros and cons of doing things too differently were not addressed, like the Allies delcaring on Belgium versus Germany. Nothing in the game will prevent this other than a small chance of a delay in US entry. This seems like just a small price to pay for such a huge deviation from history. Yet the US will enter the war no matter what the Axis do. So if the Allies can deviate this far from historical considerations with such a small cost, should there not be some way to prevent US entry by the Axis?

I hope this makes things clearier [:)]

The problem is that things like the MR pact were in place before the scenario begins. In many ways I think that WiF allows too many ahistorical possibilities that would have never have been historically considered (Britain invading Portugal in '39 in violation of a non-aggression pact comes to mind).

WiF is also designed to be reasonably balanced. If there was a way for the Axis to keep the US out of the war they would do it and win almost every game. I would argue that historically the only sure way to keep the US out of the war would be to not start the war in the first place.

Seconding you may want to try DoD. It can be seen as a situation generator for World War II. The downside is that it often leads to unbalanced scenarios and can end in 1938 with a whisper if one side is beaten badly early. It can be fun but it needs at least 3 players to play well and ideally needs 6 or more so each nation is actually working for it's own self-interest.

The biggest 'what if' is Pearl Harbor. How much longer would the US have stayed out of the conflict and how supportive the country would have been without a direct attack? I think the game does a good job with the entry feature, at least what I have seen so far. But if Japan had waited to attack until mid to late '42 could Russia survived without the lend lease?

Without a direct attack on the UK/US by Japan, I think the US would have had a very difficult time justifing a war to help out commumisum as they were considered just as bad as the Nazies. But would have Japan been willing to wait six months or more considering their oil issues?

[JagWars]

The US was supporting the UK/CW and the USSR before Pearl Harbor; Lend Lease for the UK was passed in March 1941, in April 1941 for China and in October 1941 for the USSR. Pearl Harbor may have solidified US support for the UK/CW and the Soviet Union but it was not the catalyst for Lend Lease.

I have read many newspaper articles and Congressional notes from that period. I do not believe the US would have ever entered the war without a direct attack upon US territory. The US would have continued to embargo Japan and pressured the CW to do likewise and since the UK wanted, needed, the US aid, they would most likely have complied. Japan would either have had to squelch their conquest of China or make the decision they did, to attack UK/CW and the Netherland's territories to obtain the resources they needed to continue their war. I think it is plausible that the US would have taken some military action against Japan at that point, but it may have been limited to blockading Japan or something else of a limited nature.

I have played several WiF games where the US never enters the war against Germany, but the Allies still win because of the BP's and resources the US sends to the Western Allies. One advantage of this is that 12BPs will put ground forces in the Eastern Front (USSR) in two turns while it would take four turns for 12BPs of US built ground forces to reach the front in France.

[Extraneous]

Don't Destroyers for Bases Agreement September 2, 1940.

50 USA mothballed destroyers for American lease of airfields on Trinidad, Bermuda, and Newfoundland.

[paulderynck]

The Brits got taken to the cleaners on that one. They were junk. I read somewhere (maybe wikipedia) that only nine of them saw any active duty and that was after extensive refitting.

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: SerbiaStrong

REMOVE KEBAB remove kebab

Yep...totally fair enough. REMOVE KEBAB [:D]

Neilster

No!!! Kebab is sooo yummy!

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The Brits got taken to the cleaners on that one. They were junk. I read somewhere (maybe wikipedia) that only nine of them saw any active duty and that was after extensive refitting.

I don't know about that. It allowed alot of CW forces to move out of places like the Carribean and Bermuda to be replaced by US forces. It gave the UK some needed ASW Hulls, granted not top rate but still usefull, and it allowed the US to base much more aggressively than before. This wasn't really about one side getting over on the other, it was giving the CW some aid, where the "payment" was something that the US could use once they were in the war to further aid the CW. In real terms the CW got some DDE's and a furtherance of US deployments in preparation for a US DOW, and the US got to move further from its stance of neutrality without blantanly doing so... something that was understood internationally as "When we enter this fight we will be on the side of the CW" and it allowed the US to say at home "Look we gave the CW some mothballed DE's we weren't using for free 99 year leases on bases all over the place" both sides made out pretty good here I would think. But I would be interested in hearing thoughts from folks in CW countries!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The Brits got taken to the cleaners on that one. They were junk. I read somewhere (maybe wikipedia) that only nine of them saw any active duty and that was after extensive refitting.

I don't know about that. It allowed alot of CW forces to move out of places like the Carribean and Bermuda to be replaced by US forces. It gave the UK some needed ASW Hulls, granted not top rate but still usefull, and it allowed the US to base much more aggressively than before. This wasn't really about one side getting over on the other, it was giving the CW some aid, where the "payment" was something that the US could use once they were in the war to further aid the CW. In real terms the CW got some DDE's and a furtherance of US deployments in preparation for a US DOW, and the US got to move further from its stance of neutrality without blantanly doing so... something that was understood internationally as "When we enter this fight we will be on the side of the CW" and it allowed the US to say at home "Look we gave the CW some mothballed DE's we weren't using for free 99 year leases on bases all over the place" both sides made out pretty good here I would think. But I would be interested in hearing thoughts from folks in CW countries!

warspite1

I think it has been recognised that the 50 destroyers were er... lets just say they had seen better days... They took a stack of effort to get prepared for duty (and not all ultimately were) and their usefulness was limited once they had. They were not great sea boats in their prime but as they were... well....

That said, beggars cannot be choosers. The US got the better end of the deal yes, but that's life isn't it?

Winston understood the bigger picture (thank goodness) and the deal was done, but there was no reason for the US to make life easy for us - its a tough old world out there and Roosevelt (and America) had themselves to look after.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The Brits got taken to the cleaners on that one. They were junk. I read somewhere (maybe wikipedia) that only nine of them saw any active duty and that was after extensive refitting.

The UK received improved and enlarged airfields and some improvements in their port capacities on Trinidad and Bermuda. Also, while the Caribbean locations were not likely to be under threat of attack,
the US sent garrison troops to these and several other UK Caribbean bases.

I cannot put my hands on the exact number at the moment, but I recall that about half of the destroyers were pressed into service immediately, about a quarter received minor refit immediately and the other quarter required significant refit, some of which were never completed.

Regardless, the agreement set a precedent for co-operation between the USA and the UK.

Additionally, it freed up the British V/W class destroyers to be refitted for long-range escort. These were exceptional deep water ships with advanced radar, meter-wavelength RDF and wide pattern depth charge mounts, but had very limited ranges.
The pressed into service US destroyers gave the UK the time necessary to refit and build an exceptional long-range escort fleet.

[Extraneous]

Pre-war
Prior to World War II the British and French navies concentrated on fleet destroyers. Fleet destroyers are fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warships intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet. Unfortunately the merchant ships at the beginning of the war were slow, not very maneuverable, and varied greatly in tonnage.

Several navies chose to follow the practices of World War I and used Trawlers in the role of minesweeper, convoy escort, and coastal defense.

Trawlers were small ships veried in speed, maneuverable, and tonnage (less than 1,000 tons):
Built as fishing boats and converted for military use; or
Built for military use to be later sold for civilian use as fishing boats.


World War II
At the beginning of the war the British realized a need for more escort ships and devleoped the Flower-class corvette (also known as the Gladiolus-class).

The Flower-class corvettes were faster, more maneuverable, and were larger than Trawlers (approximately 1,000 tons).

The British Royal Navy ordered 145 Flower-class corvettes in 1939. The United Kingdom had a total of 116 Corvettes being built by the end of January 1940 .

The Destroyers for Bases Agreement September 2, 1940 between the United States and the United Kingdom granted fifty mothballed destroyers in exchange for exchange for land rights on British possessions.

Town-class destroyers were heaver armed, faster, and displaced between 1,020 to 1,190 tons. Also fifty ships can be refited faster than building fifty ships.

[brian brian]

It wasn't much of a "deal" between the 2 sides. The US gave up the W-W-One era destroyers that they had already mothballed as an attempt to do something to help the British. The British could use them some, but they weren't popular to serve on due to the 4-stack design not being very comfortable on the North Atlantic.

The access to British bases in the Western Hemisphere was tacked on more to mollify the isolationist members of the US Congress than anything, to make it look more like a trade than a gift.

All iirc, but I think I have it right from Battle-of-Atlantic readings years ago.