Matrix Games Forums

Or you could just answer brian brian’s question…… Maybe you have some other reason why you refuse? I won’t guess – the answer is obvious.

Really?...and what would that be? I was about to tell Brian here and then you arrived with your remarks. If Brian really wants my answer, he can PM me. As for you, you seem to want everyone to do the work for you as was discussed in a previous thread:

tm.asp?m=3279721&mpage=8&key=

I wont oblige you. You tell me to read books, why don't you?

.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

Btw, on the fiction side, anyone has a recommendation about a book about "what-if Sealion had happened"?

warspite1

I've read two

Operation Sealion Leo Mckinstry
Operation Sealion Richard Cox

Both worth a read, although neither goes into any great detail on the planning on German side of things which is a shame.

warspite1

Any good juntoalmar?

Thanks, I will check them in Amazon when I finish with the one I'm reading (Crete by Anthony Beevor, which I am not enjoying immensely).

Several months ago I was sharing with someone about my great experiences playing MWIF. He suggested I might like the "alternate history" novels of Harry Turtledove.
Boy was he right!
I've gobbled up the 4 novels of "World War" (which diverges from our historical timeline in 1942 when aliens invade) the 3 novels of the Colonization series (set 20 years after the events of "World War") and am currently near the end of the 4th of 6 novels in "The War that Came Early" which diverges from our timeline when Hitler invades Chechoslovakia in 1938. It's been a great read and does not have the Sci-Fi elements of the other two series. There are many elements that are both possible and IMHO even probable with an earlier start to the war. There are others that seem a bit far-fetched, but it is still a really fun read. All three series are told from the perspectives of multiple characters from different countries, and the research and attention to detail is impressive.
I've probably read more in the past few months than I have since college!

Regarding Operation Sea Lion, I can recommend "Invasion!: Operation Sea Lion, 1940"
by Martin Marix Evans. Good background info on preparations and an interesting "speculative account" of what might have happened.

I have read two "Top Ten" alternative histories of WWII, from some publisher that specializes in issuing such tomes, though I forget the name. Each was a nice cheap paperback. Each book was ten possible ways the Germans and the Japanese could have won the war. I posted a summary of each to the Yahoo list years and years ago now, and maybe here once, because the obvious thing to do would be to ponder if each strategy could work playing the game.

But really, by far the best 'alternative' history of WWII I have ever read is pretty much each and every game of World in Flames I have ever played.

ORIGINAL: brian brian
But really, by far the best 'alternative' history of WWII I have ever read is pretty much each and every game of World in Flames I have ever played.

+1

I agree! It's interesting how experience with the game informs my opinion of the quality of the writing of "alternate history." For example, in one part of "Third Reich Victorious" there is a look at what might have happened if Turkey entered the war on the Axis side. The challenges we see in the game - movement rates, supply, lack of good air units - all show up in the fictionalized account. It actually goes so far as to suggest the burden to the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe outweighed the benefit, which I have not seen in the game. The additional units and pressure applied by a new front far outweighs any disadvantages, at least in my experience.

So I finally picked up a copy of Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn" about the US Army during Torch & Tunisia. It was quite excellent as I knew it would be after accidentally reading his "Day of Battle" (Italy) first. I will re-read that now before moving on to the end of the trilogy - "Guns at Last Light" (NW Europe).

As usual with good history, it did leave me with some answers about things I didn't understand, and then new questions too.

I have always known that there was some combat with the Vichy forces; the naval battle with the USN being quite dramatic, but there was ground combat as well. But I did not know Allied casualties ran to 2,200 (half KIA), and the Vichy casualties were on the range of 3,000. The Royal Navy tried some coup-de-main assault landings in Vichy harbors using American infantry forces; these were just about wiped out by the Vichy defenders. I think the Allies at the time kept the casualty details as minimized as possible amidst the general tragedy that was Vichy France and the ongoing creation of an organized Free France. Patton thought most of the screwed-up landings would have failed completely against any other military force; TORCH was about the perfect operation for live combat training of near totally green land and naval forces.

After the landings, I have never known much about what happens until the larger battles in Tunisia a few months later. It seems to me that the Allied command had plenty of FUBAR ops going on; though I had never known the details on just how the 3 Allied armies were mixed together all through their lines, one battalion at a time here there and everywhere. In WiF terms, the Axis promptly landed a high-quality German MECH, covered by a FTR2 and a Stuka, and this was easily able to stop a couple Allied divs just after they crossed the Tunisian border. The book alludes that some of the first Axis units in Tunisia were parachute infantry plucked from training for an aborted Axis attack on Malta. One has to think that this would account for the Luftwaffe strength in the Mediterranean right then; an ATR or perhaps 2 even also operated from Sicily.

At the time of the landings, the struggle for the city center of Stalingrad was at it's peak. The Germans were busy moving 10+ divisions to the eastern front at the same time so one can't say that Torch distracted the German Army all that much from ops on the Eastern Front as Stalin regularly demanded, but I would have to think that all those Luftwaffe assets flying around Tunisia would have been a big help to Paulus (4 air missions / land impulse, for the Germans).

The book is about the American Army after all, so other operations are not covered in detail. By the end in Tunis, the Allies had solid air superiority - what is left unexplained is why the Allies did not have FTR cover as they entered Tunisia? (common rookie WiF player mistake).

I have also always wondered why the units first entering Tunisia were such small units when Allied resources were pouring ashore in Algeria - & why was Patton in Morocco all that time? Naturally, one reason was logistics but another factor was the US high command in Washington was concerned about Spain either entering the war or allowing German troops to cross Spain; strong Allied forces were held in Morocco and western Algeria for this concern. (Not a problem in WiF, with the fixed diplomatic state of the neutrals).

I also learned that during the last few days of combat in Tunisia, both Montgomery and US General Terry Allen (1st Infantry), launched pointless attacks on their fronts in a final attempt to share in the glory of entering the city of Tunis itself. Each cost several hundred Allied casualties for no point at all - Allen's attack was even in direct contradiction of orders from his corps commander (Bradley, right then). The charge of "glory hunting" is a frequent theme in discussions of the western Alliance land operations, but this was the first I have read of it being something more than talk around a staff table. I believe Allen's decision there in Tunisia will be part of Atkinson's writing in the subsequent 2 volumes.

I read all three a year or two ago. They are all excellent. Allen does get a measure of redemption.