Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the Western Allies, that is mostly the French, would have pushed harder then it is entirely possible that the Soviets would not have come into Poland when they did do so. That is, unless there would be an actual alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union.[X(] Then think of that combination along with Japan . . .

warspite1

Sorry, RangerJoe, could you explain that a bit more, I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing here.

Thank-you.

If the French would have actually invaded Germany with the intention of going all the way to Warsaw, then the Ruhr could probably have been captured by the time the Soviets actually moved into Poland. At that time, do you think that the Soviet Union would have attacked Poland to assist a losing Germany? If so, would that have meant an actual, formal alliance between the Soviet Union and Germany? At the time, the Soviet Union was buying rubber from the UK and some of that may have gone on to Germany so that supply would be no more. Industrial factory made rubber was not yet mass produced in many places. There would also be other repercussions.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the Western Allies, that is mostly the French, would have pushed harder then it is entirely possible that the Soviets would not have come into Poland when they did do so. That is, unless there would be an actual alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union.[X(] Then think of that combination along with Japan . . .

warspite1

Sorry, RangerJoe, could you explain that a bit more, I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing here.

Thank-you.

If the French would have actually invaded Germany with the intention of going all the way to Warsaw, then the Ruhr could probably have been captured by the time the Soviets actually moved into Poland. At that time, do you think that the Soviet Union would have attacked Poland to assist a losing Germany? If so, would that have meant an actual, formal alliance between the Soviet Union and Germany? At the time, the Soviet Union was buying rubber from the UK and some of that may have gone on to Germany so that supply would be no more. Industrial factory made rubber was not yet mass produced in many places. There would also be other repercussions.

warspite1

Okay thanks. Well my thoughts on this:

- As said previously, I find it hard to believe that the French army, led by Gamelin, with a defensive mindset, and an army not fully mobilised in September 1939, would have got anywhere near the Ruhr- even if we suspend disbelief and give Gamelin the inclination to launch such an operation.

- The Soviets weren't attacking Poland for Germany's benefit though. They invaded Poland to grab their share of the spoils as per the secret protocols of the NS Pact.

- Whether Stalin would feel comfortable in ordering the advance on the 17th probably would depend to a large degree on what was happening with Germany - but also whether the French looked like a serious war machine that Stalin need be scared of.

- If the French had defied modern day expectation and crushed the Germans in the west and occupied the Ruhr then no, under no circumstances would I see Stalin, given his previous MO, seek to align himself with an almost beaten Germany.

- I think Stalin would do what he had up to that point and continue to do what best suits the Soviet Union. An alliance with Germany - in a scenario where Germany are almost defeated? No not a chance, but if Germany looked like they would survive and the French/British and Germans would then slug it out, weakening each other (as Stalin originally assumed they would) then I think Stalin would simply insist on taking his half of Poland and watching the west destroy itself - all the while laughing his smug head off at how stupid the west was and how clever he was.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Sorry, RangerJoe, could you explain that a bit more, I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing here.

Thank-you.

If the French would have actually invaded Germany with the intention of going all the way to Warsaw, then the Ruhr could probably have been captured by the time the Soviets actually moved into Poland. At that time, do you think that the Soviet Union would have attacked Poland to assist a losing Germany? If so, would that have meant an actual, formal alliance between the Soviet Union and Germany? At the time, the Soviet Union was buying rubber from the UK and some of that may have gone on to Germany so that supply would be no more. Industrial factory made rubber was not yet mass produced in many places. There would also be other repercussions.

warspite1

Okay thanks. Well my thoughts on this:

- As said previously, I find it hard to believe that the French army, led by Gamelin, with a defensive mindset, and an army not fully mobilised in September 1939, would have got anywhere near the Ruhr- even if we suspend disbelief and give Gamelin the inclination to launch such an operation.

- The Soviets weren't attacking Poland for Germany's benefit though. They invaded Poland to grab their share of the spoils as per the secret protocols of the NS Pact.

- Whether Stalin would feel comfortable in ordering the advance on the 17th probably would depend to a large degree on what was happening with Germany - but also whether the French looked like a serious war machine that Stalin need be scared of.

- If the French had defied modern day expectation and crushed the Germans in the west and occupied the Ruhr then no, under no circumstances would I see Stalin, given his previous MO, seek to align himself with an almost beaten Germany.

- I think Stalin would do what he had up to that point and continue to do what best suits the Soviet Union. An alliance with Germany - in a scenario where Germany are almost defeated? No not a chance, but if Germany looked like they would survive and the French/British and Germans would then slug it out, weakening each other (as Stalin originally assumed they would) then I think Stalin would simply insist on taking his half of Poland and watching the west destroy itself - all the while laughing his smug head off at how stupid the west was and how clever he was.

+1

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




That is why I have repeatedly stated that the French should have attacked with whatever they had; just go in and keep going. The reserves would follow later - along with the British.

This is exactly what the German High Command fully expected once "Hitler's Gamble" failed, and France and the UK declared war on Sept. 3rd. Hitler, most famously, simply asked "What now?" No one had an answer. The Allies could have knocked Germany out of the war right then. Even after the German victory in Poland they were facing a spent German Army with their fully mobilised ones.

I suspect that the Germans would have won a stunning victory if the Allies would have gone for an all-out attack on Germany in September 1939. I think that both Keitel and Halder overestimated the ability, and capabilities, of the French, and CW, forces at the beginning of the war.

I think the biggest problem that the French had was that they weren't prepared for breaching German minefields. They lost 4 tanks to mines and the offensive was stopped just after capturing a heavily mined forest.
Germans were using Bouncing Betty mines in Saar, these must have been quite a nasty shock.

My current reads:

So the first is Mary Shelley - Frankenstein. An edition with illustrations by Lynd Ward. I finally finished reading it day before yesterday. Took me, like, 4 months to finish.

Bought it because the theme interests me. In a way we were all created without our consent and thrown into a hostile world by irresponsible creators.

I love how sentimental it was and also loved the Creature’s perspective - it was so relatable!

-Piotr Olender - Naval Military Science of the Period of “Steam and Iron” (1860-1905). A pretty general book about the topic. Quite huge - A4, 330 pages long. I’m on page 245. Started reading it in August, last year.

-Józef Wiesław Dyskant, Andrzej Michałek - Port Arthur, Tsushima 1904-1905. Another huge book. A4, 450 pages long. I’m 120 pages in. I started reading it in August, last year as a part of reading up on military history of the Age of Rifles. I recently paused, because I want to read up on navy and fortifications from that period.

-Krzysztof Marcinek - Izera and Ypres , Campaign in Flanders 1914. I’m on page 44. A book about early WWI. I started reading it before finishing the previous books because I read large books in bed and small books walking around kitchen.

-Eleanor Catton - The Rehearsal. She has a quite twisted way of writing. I’m on page 78 now.

-Karol Kleczke, Władysław Wyszyński - Permanent Fortification. I started reading it because the Port Arthur book got to the point where the siege started so I wanted to read up on the subject to better understand what’s going on in the wider context. I’m currently on page 30.

-Ian Watson - Mana I - Lucky’s Harvest - Part I: Proclaimers. I learned about it in 2016 when he mentioned writing it after two Wh40k novels - Inquisitor and Space Marine and that it was influenced by them. Currently on page 108. It’s quite weird.

When I started reading more in August, 2020, I expected to start reading, like, 60 books a year, but instead I slowed down in October and my reading times have collapsed from November.

I have literally finished only two books from December to now. Day before yesterday, I started counting the amount of time I read. Maybe it will help a bit.

The Soviet-German War1941-1945:
Myths and Realities:
A Survey Essay

by
David M. Glantz

https://web.archive.org/web/20140811030 ... 58-history

Found a blast from the past. Back in the early '80s The Stars & Stripes ran a regular cartoon drawn by a fellow soldier. It was a very popular series because it was edgy, captured the average American soldier's view of being stationed in Germany and it upset more than its fair share of officers...and it was wildly popular. Think of it as the Army's version of Dilbert.

Apparently, the cartoonist, after receiving a lot of mail wondering why there wasn't a book, decided to compile all of his strips into a book. The interesting parts of the book are his stories of the ire he received from the command ranks.

Inflation-proof your Portfolio: How to Protect your Money From the Coming Government Hyperinflation by David Voda. There is a lot of useful information contained in this book.

This sounds interesting: women wargamers and how they won WWII!

Calum Douglas, The Secret Horsepower Race: Western Front Fighter Engine Development, Tempest Books, 2020

Very technical (the author is a mechanical engineer who has specialized in Formula One engine technology), but a fascinating look at the problems of piston engine development through the end of WWII. We learn that the Spitfire V had a single-speed supercharger (Merlin 45) because the two speed intercooled Merlin XX was too long to fit in the available fuselage space, so it was optimized for higher altitude, sacrificing low and medium altitude performance.

But the Allied problems were small potatoes compared to those of Daimler Benz, BMW, and Junkers. Germany had a severe shortage of vital metals, which compromised engine development, performance, and reliability. German engines in operational units were de-rated, compared to their test prototypes, to prevent them from failing in flight.

The main shortcoming of the book is its limited scope: by focusing only on "Western front" fighters, fully half of the U.S. engine development is left out. While the the British and German aviation industries devoted most of their advanced development efforts on fighters, the U.S. focused on bombers. The most advanced U.S. engine powered the B-29, while most turbo engines went into the B-17 and B-24. By ignoring these engines, Douglas loses the chance to compare the most advanced U.S. developments; and, by leaving out the USN aircraft, he isn't able to compare the development of two-stage mechanical supercharging by Pratt & Whitney with that of Rolls Royce. Just as an example, the F4F-3 was in combat almost a full year before the Spitfire IX, which itself was contemporary with the F4U-1 and nearly identical in performance.

Oh my!! Just thought I'd give Seaforth Publishing a quick check and.....

...if this is anywhere near as good as their book on the Littorios then this will be a superb addition to the collection.

Well that has totally made my day. Out at the end of April apparently!!

Rise of the Seleucid Empire 323 223 BC J Grainger.

ORIGINAL: Hanny

Rise of the Seleucid Empire 323 223 BC J Grainger.

An excellent 3 volume series on a little known empire.

Legion (Novel) by Dan Abnett

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Oh my!! Just thought I'd give Seaforth Publishing a quick check and.....

...if this is anywhere near as good as their book on the Littorios then this will be a superb addition to the collection.

Well that has totally made my day. Out at the end of April apparently!!

warspite1

Arrgghhh - put back to late May or early June.....

Barbarossa by Alan Clark

This came out in 1965 - but now counts as ancient history I suppose. It should prove excellent grounding for my glorious forthcoming victories in WITE2

Fortunately as my copy of the WITE2 manual is probably still stuck in the Suez canal, my offensive is delayed - a curiously appropriate occurrence.

Some historians hate it but here is a review from Goodreads:

Barbarossa by Alan Clark was published over half a century ago and is still a classic of the Nazi / Soviet military struggle on the Eastern Front. Don't let the title fool you. This account is much more than just the initial invasion of Russia by the Wehrmacht. It recounts the entire war in Eastern Europe. This masterpiece focuses on the major strategic aspects of the fighting primarily from the German perspective - from the initial German invasion and the turning point at Stalingrad to the final collapse of the German forces and the Soviet's sweep through Poland and into Berlin.

The account is definitely lopsided with the predominance of the discussion focusing on the German perspective. This is due to the period in which it was written. It would be another 40 years before the Soviet archives opened and historians could begin to review the details from a Russian viewpoint. Never-the-less this is a fantastic introduction to the early successes, mid-war stresses and finally the total collapse of the Nazi war machine.

The author provides some biographical background on the primary participants with a focus on the German leadership. Of particular interest are the quoted exchanges between Hitler and various members of the German General Staff giving some direct insight into the interaction of the personalities involved and the atmosphere surrounding those meetings.

In addition to the military aspect of the account, Alan Clark includes the economic particulars driving the strategy and battles. As an example, Clark discusses Albert Speer's production of tanks, close working relationship with Colonel General Guderian and the design and fielding of the new generation of tanks - the Panthers and Tigers. Challenges with keeping the mechanized forces fueled is discussed from both a logistical perspective early in the war and how the petroleum shortage at the end of the war impacted operations.

Diplomatic aspects of the war are also part of the narrative. Of particular interest was Clark's assessment of how Ribbentrop was viewed by many of the German General Staff - which was at best a bumbling fool. Another fascinating insight is Clark's documentation of Himmler's take on how he (Himmler) was viewed by the Western Powers. According to Clark Himmler believed he was viewed in a positive light by the Western Powers. Himmler truly thought he could negotiate a peace with the West, and even went as far as hoping the West would participate in the fight against Communism, i.e. the Soviets, in the East. It seems the Nazi leadership were living in quite the fantasy world at the conclusion of the war.

Overall I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in the fighting on the Eastern Front. Written in a style that is easy to read this comprehensive study continues to be a valuable contribution to the collection of WW II knowledge.

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Barbarossa by Alan Clark

This came out in 1965.....

warspite1

I had no idea its as old as me [:)]

I read this about 25-30 years ago. I guess all books about the Soviet - German war written at that time will have limitations.

But I agree that the author had an easy to read style - which can never be over rated (I recall trying to read Erickson's first volume at around the same time - and failed to get through The Road To Stalingrad three times.... ). Sold it in the end having never got past the first couple of chapters. Always wondered if that was the right decision.....

Some light reading for bedtime

I purchased WITE2 and so I've been dusting off my Osprey books on the Eastern Front - specifically (Operation Barbarossa (1), (2) and (3)) to get in the mood.

Just finished a book about Gustaff Erichson, as he called himself. Also known as Gustav Vasa. Or Gustav I of Sweden to the English speaking world.

And know I want to play some medieval game.