Table Tactics New Product Release

I think that you could be ahead of the curve, Jack, if you produce a WWI grand strategy game. I believe that we will see a glut of games covering WWI as the 100th anniversary of opening hostilities is in 2014. Unfortunately, too many people do not understand the significance of this conflict and how the repercussions have affected WWII.  Many people think that WWII is far more interesting than WWI, but they don’t understand that you had to have WWI before you could even have WWII.

You hit it right on the head C_Strabala.  Italy was very upset that they weren’t allowed to increase their African colonial possessions at Germany’s expense at the end of WW1.  That and economic woes led to Musolini’s popularity.  Also, the harsh terms of Versailles and the “stab in the back” notion were directly responsible for Hitler’s popularity.  With both of these two rising to power, and both being ruthless dictators, they felt the only way to fix their respective countries’ economic woes was military expansionism.

All of this was compounded by the Allied powers desire to avoid war at all costs due to memories of the carnage of WW1.  Italy raped Ethiopia with no more than a strong “No No” from the League of Nations.  Germany absorbed Austria and Czechoslovakia without even raising a rifle because Britain and France wanted so much to appease Hitler in the hopes of avoiding war.  Of course, we all know now that was all in vain.

@knp7765:

You hit it right on the head C_Strabala.  Italy was very upset that they weren’t allowed to increase their African colonial possessions at Germany’s expense at the end of WW1.  That and economic woes led to Musolini’s popularity.  Also, the harsh terms of Versailles and the “stab in the back” notion were directly responsible for Hitler’s popularity.  With both of these two rising to power, and both being ruthless dictators, they felt the only way to fix their respective countries’ economic woes was military expansionism.

Britain and France didn’t just offend Italy, but Japan as well. The Japanese (who had allied with the entente and had neutralized some of the German Pacific fleet and taken German colonial pacific possessions, asked to be recognized as ‘equals’ with the Europeans. This was denied. The Japanese deemed this so offensive, they decided to ‘go their own way’ setting them on course for Pearl Harbor and so on. It was Versailles Treaty and also the legacy of their one sided ‘Trafalgar-esque’ naval victory in the 1904-5 war (battle of Tsushima) against Russia that set Japan on course.

@13thguardsriflediv:

@knp7765:

You hit it right on the head C_Strabala.  Italy was very upset that they weren’t allowed to increase their African colonial possessions at Germany’s expense at the end of WW1.  That and economic woes led to Musolini’s popularity.  Also, the harsh terms of Versailles and the “stab in the back” notion were directly responsible for Hitler’s popularity.  With both of these two rising to power, and both being ruthless dictators, they felt the only way to fix their respective countries’ economic woes was military expansionism.

Britain and France didn’t just offend Italy, but Japan as well. The Japanese (who had allied with the entente and had neutralized some of the German Pacific fleet and taken German colonial pacific possessions, asked to be recognized as ‘equals’ with the Europeans. This was denied. The Japanese deemed this so offensive, they decided to ‘go their own way’ setting them on course for Pearl Harbor and so on. It was Versailles Treaty and also the legacy of their one sided ‘Trafalgar-esque’ naval victory in the 1904-5 war (battle of Tsushima) against Russia that set Japan on course.

I didn’t know that about Japan.  I knew they were allied with England and took out the German colony in China, Tsingtao I think it was called, but I didn’t know that the European allies snubbed the Japanese so.  Thanks for the info.

Yeah, read about the Washington Naval Conference of 1921. Japan was given the shaft by the Brits & Americans.

Well, that was the Japanese military’s perspective on it at the time, anyway.  The bottom line is that the Japanese were insisting on full numerical parity with the US and the UK, whereas the US and UK insisted that this was unrealistic, since Japan had only one ocean to defend rather than 2 (the US) or 3 (the UK).  Whatever you think about the arguments on either side, the bottom line is that trying to achieve naval parity with the US and UK would have bankrupted Japan; there was no way that they could realistically afford to keep up with the building pace that their brass was insisting on, and many of the Japanese politicians were actually happy to end the growing dreadnought arms race.  (Which, it must be noted, really just ended up saving the world’s great powers from spending astronomical sums on weapons systems that would be obsolete in 20 years.)

ok stay on topic please.

We are looking forward to these units :-)

Good luck Jack! I’m rooting for you!

@Table:

I tried telling them that I’m a good guy and just cut me a check but that didn’t work.

Mussolini used to brag that he could call upon “8 million bayonets”.  Would it help if you told your money guys that you have (by today’s count) the backing of 10,545 A&A.org board members?

Yeah, at least it made some kind of sense to have Italian units be German recasts; we know they have to cut some corners here and there, and the Italians DID use a good bit of German equipment, especially the Italian Social Republic toward the end.

It would have made so much more sense to give the French US units, as at least in the late-war period the Free French made extensive use of US gear.  (Free French forces liked to wear their Adrian helmets as a distinguishing feature out of national pride, but even this was limited to what they could scrounge.)  Leclerc’s armored columns, for example, rode into Paris in Shermans.

Love those French T-34 tanks.  If they would have had T-34’s the French would have stopped the Germans.

That’s not necessarily true.  Tactics played a big role in the Germans overrunning France.  The British and French actually had more tanks than the Germans and some of the French tanks were considered superior.  Unfortunately, they didn’t mass their tanks like the Germans did and were torn apart piecemeal.  Also, the British and French commanders used outdated strategies and couldn’t cope with the rapid moving Blitzkrieg style of war that the Germans employed.  So, even if the French had T-34s, I imagine the outcome would have been pretty much the same.

OK, duly noted.  The T-34’s didn’t do much for the Soviets either until their tactics caught up with the technology.  Just for the record, though, I don’t think the French produced anything really competitive with the Germans’ Panzer III’s & IV’s (which were, admittedly not the bulk of the German forces yet by 1940) much less the T-34, which was truly ahead of its time when it first came out.

Char-B and the SOMUA were the best medium and heavy tanks in the world in 1940.

Char-B and the SOMUA were the best medium and heavy tanks in the world in 1940.

I’m not so sure.  The Char B and Somua had good theoretical stats, but their crew division-of-labor problems were severe; particularly their 1-man turrets, put them at a huge disadvantage.