Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Maybe so, but turning away from an invasion of England to attack the Soviet Union HAS gone down as one of the biggest miscalculations in military history.

If England falls, the chance to prevent a US entry into the war becomes a much more likely scenario.

This is a fantasy thread anyway.

What if Hitler had anticipated the Fall of France and had made some detailed plans for an invasion of Britain... perhaps the manufacture of hundreds of torpedo boats to seal off the Channel from the Royal Navy? An additional airborne division to strike at London and decapitate the Brtish government?

What if Hitler had realized that massed air power could destroy any sortie's by the Royal Navy that might threaten his invasion transports? Of course, the Prince of Wales and Repulse weren't going down for another year to make that point, but he could have had that insight. If the Germans had been able to put a couple of armored corps ashore in England, exactly what did the Brits have to defend with if it was done very quickly after Dunkirk? Was Churchill correct that they "would never surrender"?... or would they have agreed to work out some kind of deal?

Again... this is a fantasy thread so I'm just throwing out some speculation here.

Meh, I'm no good at these fantasy threads, so mind if I play debunker? [:o]

Which part of the German war machine gets sacrificed to train the seamen and build all the requisite craft to get the Germans across the channel? Would this not alter the situation in France? Such preparations would also have sped up Britain's preparations for war as Britain's centuries old stance of naval superiority over continental powers would have been threatened once again.

Massed air power was used at Dunkirk. It was considered to be less than successful - British ships were sunk but the German pilots found it difficult to target the smaller vessels. And vessels of a similar size were what needed to be sunk in the Channel to ensure the safe crossing of an invasion fleet and subsequent supplies and reinforcements. It's not just the 'big' ships which need sinking but several hundred smaller patrol craft too.

Immediately after Dunkirk, Britain had two fully equipped infantry divisions and the equivalent of 23 further infantry divisions lacking in heavy artillery (perhaps 40% of establishment in total). A German invasion force at this time would be coming straight from battle in France, with minimal time to refit, and would certainly suffer losses on the way over the channel as well as being severely hamstrung for supplies upon arrival. The lack of a mobile reserve would be a problem for the British but then it was hardly a secret where the German invasion was likely to arrive and British dispositions were based on this.

I once wrote out an alternate timeline to try and get the Germans across the channel which accounted for likely British and French responses. The only way in which I could do it was to let Germany win WW1 [:D]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

...By the end of the BOB, Britain had more fighters than she started with, germany had many less. Only one British airfield was actually out of action during the infamous airfield bombing phase usually cited as the point the RAF was nearly defeated, that was biggin hill, and that was only out of action for a few hours.

Fact is, the Germans never even got close during the BOB. Fighter Command could have gone on for a lot longer if required. I certainly think they could have defeated the Luftwaffe had they pushed it that far. When they switched to night bombing, though, the luftwaffe were essentially conceding the battle...

The BOB discussion should be centered on the radar network; its the key point for the critical early phases during BOB.

Brit radar network had relay nodes that formed the backbone of the defense... Luftwaffe had pummeled these to the point where another week of hits would have closed down the radar network. From that point on Luftwaffe would have arrived unannounced and would not have faced the concentrated RAF response that was so successful historically.

Analysis I've read suggests a loss for the RAF at that point was very much a possibility.

I would like to see a game where the Axis can opt to use their resources a bit more sensibly.....maybe let the Germans allow Italy to use their PzIII & IV designs (ouch). Or more fully motorize the army instead of building capital ships. Lots of what-if's.

Check out the World in Flames forum. When this is released, you'll be able control production, politics, grand strategy and operations when playing the Axis (or the Allies). It's being based on the successful and critically acclaimed paper-based wargame of the same name and one of the viable strategies is a concentration on the Med and/or massive submarine construction.

tt.asp?forumid=110

The exerpt below is from the playguide for paper WiF. It contains some WiF jargon about bidding. This is a process by which the players (2-6 people) for the major powers can be fairly decided but doesn't have to be used. There are other considerations to do with players on the same side actually competing with each other to a certain extent for individual victory. That is, the player controlling say Italy, can win the game if Italy does particularly well, whilst still striving for Axis victory (which incidently rarely involves total global domination). This simulates natural, nationalist tensions quite well.

Grand strategy
A single game turn may consist of 10 or more impulses, and each impulse may involve naval, land and air activities. Because of this unpredictability, you can never make a perfect plan. Instead your plans must be those that have a reasonable chance of being carried out in the time allocated (see turn length & initiative below). In other words, you must play percentages when you plan ahead.
The game is really all about focus. If you can focus your opponents’ attention from one front to another, you have already halfway beaten them. Players (particularly the Commonwealth) tend to concentrate on only one theatre, allowing players less competent than they are to defeat them elsewhere.
The fact that the objectives are evenly spread dictates that the non-European maps should not be ignored. Far too often, Allied players fixate on the European maps and throw away their chance of victory.
Because of the global spread of the Allied powers, they have the luxury of being able to choose whether to weight their efforts towards Europe or the Pacific. If they can concentrate on the Pacific, Japan will be rapidly conquered. Therefore, Germany and Italy must spend the early years of the war dragging the Allied player’s attention onto Europe.
Fortunately, the fact that the Axis have the first shot at victory makes this quite easy. If Germany can conquer Britain or Russia it is almost impossible for the Axis to lose. If both are conquered, they have won and will dominate the globe. Thus, the two obvious Axis strategies are to attack Britain or Russia (after France has fallen), to which the Allies must respond by committing the bulk of their efforts in shoring up the attacked Major Power.
A third Axis strategy is to establish a defensive perimeter from Gibraltar to Suez, planning a late attack on Russia in 1942 or 1943, not necessarily to conquer her, but to gain valuable resources and better defence lines. The disadvantage of this strategy is that it hands the initiative to the Allies after the conquest of France. Therefore, they may find the time to concentrate on Japan. Furthermore, in this latest version of WiF, Soviet production increases when she is at war with Germany, making her even more formidable. However, if the Allies have bid high, this can be a very successful strategy.
Do not exclude the Japanese from discussions on European strategy on the grounds that it does not affect them. Instead, the Axis should co-ordinate their attacks globally to stretch their opponents to the limit. For example, if Germany is fighting the Commonwealth when Japan comes to war, India and Australia become logical targets. If Germany is attacking Russia then Vladivostok could be easily plucked.
The Axis should be careful about switching from attack to defence. If it is left too late, their forces could be hopelessly over stretched. You should convert to a defensive strategy when it becomes apparent that further offensives cannot achieve rewards commensurate with the effort. That is not to say that the early years are all out attack. You must always leave garrisons in your home countries to deter any surprise invasions or paradrops.
An early dilemma for the Allies is that saving Russia can cripple the Commonwealth and vice versa. The Commonwealth must turn the United Kingdom into such a mighty fortress that the Axis won’t dare invade (a bit of macho bombast can help here), leaving Germany no choice but to attack Russia. Russia of course is doing exactly the same thing; not wanting the United Kingdom to be conquered of course, but hoping the Germans will become seriously entangled. Russia and the Commonwealth should be aware of the consequences that their actions have on their ally and find the right balance.
If the Allies can survive until US entry, the scales tip inexorably and ever more rapidly against the Axis. You will have the luxury of being able to strike where and when you like and with substantial forces, thus wresting the initiative from the Axis. Do not become over-confident though, or you could over stretch yourself and leave the Axis in a position to launch a devastating counter-attack. Your attack must be based on your defence, not replace it.
By about this point you are probably kicking yourself at the ridiculously high number of objectives you bid to be one of the Allies. Don’t despair. Even though the Axis seem to weaken at an imperceptible rate, when the collapse occurs, it is spectacular. I have seen the Russians sweep 20 hexes across Europe in one turn (I was the Germans and I counted every hex). A turn like that can salvage what seems to be the most hopeless of positions. If Japan can be conquered quickly, knock her out first. If however you are enmeshed in Europe, your largest forces must concentrate there to conquer Germany and Italy first. Italy is subject to the knock-out conquest and she should be targeted early.
When heading for victory, be sure your forces get to those vital objectives first. Sure, you are wholeheartedly committed to the Alliance (or Axis), just so long as your “allies” realise who’s putting in the most effort here. Your labours, quite properly, should be suitably rewarded. After all, you are being extremely generous letting your “allies” come second, what more could they want?

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: JSS

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

...By the end of the BOB, Britain had more fighters than she started with, germany had many less. Only one British airfield was actually out of action during the infamous airfield bombing phase usually cited as the point the RAF was nearly defeated, that was biggin hill, and that was only out of action for a few hours.

Fact is, the Germans never even got close during the BOB. Fighter Command could have gone on for a lot longer if required. I certainly think they could have defeated the Luftwaffe had they pushed it that far. When they switched to night bombing, though, the luftwaffe were essentially conceding the battle...

The BOB discussion should be centered on the radar network; its the key point for the critical early phases during BOB.

Brit radar network had relay nodes that formed the backbone of the defense... Luftwaffe had pummeled these to the point where another week of hits would have closed down the radar network. From that point on Luftwaffe would have arrived unannounced and would not have faced the concentrated RAF response that was so successful historically.

Analysis I've read suggests a loss for the RAF at that point was very much a possibility.

To a point, no argument, but they never did enough damage and I suspect would have needed to use ground forces to completely shut down the net work. In itself, it would never had beaten Fighter Command since they could have relocated to bases north of London if lack of warning was allowing the Germans to hit their souther coast bases round the clock, but it would have given the Germans the sort of air superiority they needed over Kent and Sussex to give Sealion a chance of a successful landing had they figured out how to beat he Royal Navy.

There are two things here, the defeat of fighter command or the winning or air superiority over the country south of London to pave thw ay for Sealion. I don't think the first was ever on, although the second may have been achievable in certain circumstances.

Regards,
IronDuke

****You give the Western Allies too much credit...Even without their help, the Soviets would have been in Berlin sometime in 1946.

****The inability to capture Moscow and remove Stalin from power in a single campaign season was the greastest mistake. The Germans lost their best men and material to attrition on the Eastern Front during 42-43, while the soviets built an unstoppable sledgehammer of an army during that same period.

****If German forces had attacked in say, early May of 41, as opposed to late June, things might have been different. But after the winter of 41, all the Germans could ever hope for would be a stalemate with Russia somewhere in Eastern Europe. Thats if the Germans could have made "peace" with England and the sleeping giant long enough for them to realize the bigger, if not more evil, threat of Communism. It could have been like those Dodge commercials now with "Dr Z"...Mass produced King Tigers with Hemi engines! [;)]

BLESS YOU!!! [&o][&o][&o] This is what I was really hoping to hear, that World In Flames will give the player the capacity to make decisions of logistics, production types, and other vital semi-military (e.g. not exactly relating to something that shoots bullets or drops bombs) decisions that have Grand-Strategic Scope. The closest I have seen a game come to this so far is HOI2 (sorry for mentioning a heritic), which moves in the right direction, but isn't quite what I want.

I will be saving my pennies so that I can get the game when it's released. Heck, I waited a couple of years for TAOW3, and it was well worth it.

As to the military discussion:

There was no mention of Dunkirk, BOB, Sealion, or Barbarossa in the article quoted. The author simply requoted an ancient argument outlining a Military strategy (I agree, it wouldn't work with the Nazi's) for winning WW2 following the Fall of France. Devoted folks have put in a lot of good ideas on the subject, which I really enjoy. One person pointed out a key poin I missed...If Hitler/Rundstedt had not halted the panzers before Dunkirk, the Whermacht could have bagged The BEF!!! Sealion would have been unnecessary then. Also not too smart. The beaches were mined with quite a large amount anthrax spores (British document declassified in the 80's or 90's) which Churchill was willing to use if the Germans invaded. Yeah, they had gas masks for the men, but what about the horses? [:'(]

Anyway, with or without the BEF, Sealion and anthrax, the plan was to supress Malta with ariel interdection to allow the supply of 4 Panzer Division. The feasability study was done by Ritter VonThoma. He thought they could take Eqypt & Suez.

Anthrax spores? you mean Britain could have been resposible for the greatest chemical warfare disaster and not even have been aware of the potential world annihilation?

History in hindsight - LOL

Crap - every Englishman, scot, Northern Irishman and Welshman would have done his duty and much, much more.....

Invade us and die!!

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Maybe so, but turning away from an invasion of England to attack the Soviet Union HAS gone down as one of the biggest miscalculations in military history.

This is a fantasy thread anyway.

Didn’t realize Germany had any choice in the matter ?


But if we are talking fantasy, Germany forms a alliance in 38 with America and divides the world in two

Game over at that point [:'(]

ORIGINAL: watchtower

History in hindsight - LOL

Crap - every Englishman, scot, Northern Irishman and Welshman would have done his duty and much, much more.....

Invade us and die!!

[&o]

Too right Sarge you know the score - I have been map scouring and ploting our defensive posistion's made in 40-41. It would have been murder. A lot of theses posistions still exist. I will post some soon.

We are a nation born of invaders!! We are Romans, Celts, Saxons and vikings amongst others!!!!

BE AFRAID....BE VERY AFRAID!! [:D][8D][:'(]

ANTHRAX?? I try to keep my WW2 trivia straight, and would NOT misrepresent things in this forum, unless clearly labeled as propaganda. [:)]  I am going to have to do a book search, because I am not sure where I FIRST read this allegation. I believe it was in "Dirty Little Secrets of WW2" by James F. Dunnigan and Albert Noifi (The SPI folks). However, if one Googles as follows [anthrax, world war 2], you will find that there are numerous sites referencing British research and plans to use anthrax spores on the Germans. They did not manage to completely decontaminate the island where the testing was done until the 1990's. [X(] Unfortunately (for me) THAT particular project started in 1942, well after the threat of Sealion. [:@] I will continue to dig, but the humdrum truth will probably be that they planned on using it as a last resort, and no anthrax was actually buried below "The white cliffs of Dover".I think "where there is smoke, there is fire", but perhaps not anthrax. Apologies for possibly cross referencing 2 seperate incidents, and combining them as one.[&o][&o][&o][&o]
 
I do think it quit possible, indeed probable the Churchill (whom I admire greatly.....but not on this one) would sugguest such tactics, but perhaps saner heads prevailed (until 1942).
 
Looking forward to some good research.[:'(]  

Here is the link I found (still digging). http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/anthrax.htm [:D].
 
I do agree that it was a bad idea. [:-] So was trusting Stalin. I never said these guys were perfect.
 
Tom OC [>:]
 
 

ORIGINAL: The Sabot

****You give the Western Allies too much credit...Even without their help, the Soviets would have been in Berlin sometime in 1946.

****The inability to capture Moscow and remove Stalin from power in a single campaign season was the greastest mistake. The Germans lost their best men and material to attrition on the Eastern Front during 42-43, while the soviets built an unstoppable sledgehammer of an army during that same period.

****If German forces had attacked in say, early May of 41, as opposed to late June, things might have been different. But after the winter of 41, all the Germans could ever hope for would be a stalemate with Russia somewhere in Eastern Europe. Thats if the Germans could have made "peace" with England and the sleeping giant long enough for them to realize the bigger, if not more evil, threat of Communism. It could have been like those Dodge commercials now with "Dr Z"...Mass produced King Tigers with Hemi engines! [;)]

I don't think the USSR could have taken Germany by '47. I say that based on the purist viewpoint that Germany truly has no war with any western powers in the West, such that it really is totally Germany vs USSR. Also, if the West isn't helping the USSR, most particularly in the form of hundreds of thousands of supply trucks the USSR still probably doesn't take Germany by the end of '46 with everything else being the same (Germany still at war with the West), but, that would be somewhat pointless anyway because the West had taken that same territory of Germany at that same time the USSR did. You would still have Germany conquered by the West, and maybe the USSR still hadn't got into Poland yet.

As far as Barbarossa having been started too late making a difference, this is a common argument, the only problem is that they had planned to do that very thing, but the troubles in the Balkans diverted them from it. Hitler, I think it was, was known to say that the diversion didn't really hurt them anyway, because if they had attacked in May they would have been attacking through what turned out to be a huge muddy time period in Russia.

ORIGINAL: watchtower
Crap - every Englishman, scot, Northern Irishman and Welshman would have done his duty and much, much more.....

Invade us and die!!

Just like what happened the last time with William of Orange [;)]

Just to add a tidbit to the conjecture, what if Germany had anticipated the Allied bombing campaign and a long struggle of conquest and made the early adjustments?

Instead of keeping their industrial focus on their population(consumer), they had incorporated Albert Speer's production increases for armaments on a full war footing from early 1938.

Could they have produced the necessary capacity and technological innovations to win, given this early foresight and commitment?

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Just to add a tidbit to the conjecture, what if Germany had anticipated the Allied bombing campaign and a long struggle of conquest and made the early adjustments?

Instead of keeping their industrial focus on their population(consumer), they had incorporated Albert Speer's production increases for armaments on a full war footing from early 1938.

Could they have produced the necessary capacity and technological innovations to win, given this early foresight and commitment?

Great point. This was significant. It was combined with decision to delay production of new Luftwaffe platforms. Included in this delay was the Me 262 project. Have to believe this could have been the wonder weapon that would have altered the course of the war (and the resulting post war map of Europe) if fielded early enough (i.e. while Germany still had jet fuel to burn[X(]).

tacticon stated: All Hitler needed to do to come out as a winner was to not invade Poland and keep Austria, Czech, the Rhineland and East Prussia. He probably could have negotiated the Danzig corridor back from Poland.

While I agree, I doubt leaving Alsace and Lorraine in the hands of the French was a long term option.

- Marauders

Imho, the war was lost for Germany when the first german soldier crossed the border to Poland. The first quick victories were gained against weaker opponents - i consider even France a weaker opponent, because the french military leadership (unlike the british or german) never learned the lessons of modern warfare taught by WWI. Great Britain was the first powerful opponent, and promptly Germany failed. So, imho, the only way to win the war was to defeat Great Britain, but without a strong navy (and i mean strong) this was just impossible.

ORIGINAL: JSS
Great point. This was significant. It was combined with decision to delay production of new Luftwaffe platforms. Included in this delay was the Me 262 project. Have to believe this could have been the wonder weapon that would have altered the course of the war (and the resulting post war map of Europe) if fielded early enough (i.e. while Germany still had jet fuel to burn[X(]).

The engines were terrible on the Me262 and it wasn't particularly good at landing either. Jets would perhaps have had a impact on some of the bombers but would they really have been worth the effort?