Why Take Denmark

[MarcelJV]

OK, everyone does it. I did it for a while, but now I am not sure why I did it.

Without a plane in Denmark you do nothing to stop the allied fleet from passing by. They do get an extra -1 in combat for passing enemy territory. You need Sweden to block the crossing arrow.

A Plane in Western Germany does just as good a job opt firing at passing fleets as one in Denmark. If you do not take you do not have to garrison it either, saves a infantry, artillery and a flak. The allies can take it any time whether you hold it or not, I have found. One air attack with some naval support and your artillery is gone, and here come the infantry. Seems to me to not pay off. They can take Denmark for almost free if you do not take it, but that would seem to be the only concern.

Am I crazy here?[&:]

[Scott_WAR]

I never take it as Germany, and rarely see the allies take it in games I play.

[JanSorensen]

The plane in Western Germany does not op-fire on naval units moving from Skagerak to Kattegat to the Baltic sea as no two consecutive sea areas both border WGermany.

[Doobious]

I take Denmark for opp fire protection of Baltic Sea fleets.

[a511]

taking denmark is a must in all my axis games (and i found the same move by my opponents in all my allied games as well).

i always put a tac bomber, infantry, flak and artillery there to save guard the free trade from sweden. imo, its diff for the allied to take denmark as only heavy bomber can reach denmark from england (unless further research by allied or the allied take Norway as well) w/o fighters protection, the allied really need a sizable hv bomber squard to achieve the objective and i dont think it worths the effort ...

in most of my pbems, the free trade from sweden is always my last couple of RPs in the final days of germany ...

AN

[Big Lou]

While I think there is reasonable debate about the early capture of Norway or Sweden as Germany, the capture of Denmark is a no-brainer. Just like securing Gibralter secures the Med, capturing Denmark secures the Baltic sea. German control of the Baltic guarantees them the resources from Norway and Sweden and reduces the defenses required for Eastern Germany, Western Poland, and Eastern Prussia. Those are 3 territories that the WA can launch an amphibous invasion into if they can sail past the narrows between Denmark and Sweden. So by defending Denmark, Germany does not have to worry about a strong defense for those 3 territories - just like securing Gibralter means that Germany does not have to to have a strong defense in N Italy, S Italy, Sicily, etc.

East Prussia and Western Poland are key territories; they have minium garrison requirements to keep Russia frozen. An allied occupation of one of those territories can trigger an early Soviet entry into the war - a diasterous situation for Germany. A single artillery in Denmark will close the baltic to any WA fleets trying to enter it (just like an artillery in Gibralter essentially closes the med).

The safe control of Denmark is not at all hard to achieve for Germany. A fighter and flak will make any air attack quite difficult for the WA - since only the single British bomber and CAGs can attack it by air (until the WA fighters get range 3). One to two infantry along with an artillery piece will mean that the WA will have to invade with a significant force to take Denmark. That will leave a large portion of the WA fleet (and several transports) in range for German air and subs to pick off. In addition, for the first 2 years of the war, it is unlikely that the WA can invade with significant force to actually hold Demanrk. This means that the following turn Germany will counter attack and crush the British expeditionary force - costing the WA many of the precious few units that they are able to produce this early on.

They key to Denmark is not a plane stationed there; it is the artillery. Every other unit placed in Denmark is there to protect the artillery.

Yup- what a511 said