How Psychology Solved A WWII Shipwreck Mystery

A news story about some of the secret behind-the-scenes work (signals intelligence and radio navigation) done by the Women’s Royal Canadian Naval Service (the Wrens) during WWII.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/d-day-code-breakers-women-1.5159789

Germany had essentially two options here. 1) Capture the city quickly, before the defenses could be built up. 2) Capture it via siege.

I don’t think that creating an urban combat situation, in which Germany attempted to capture the city street by street, would have been viable. In typical combat situations German soldiers had a 3:1 or 4:1 advantage in combat effectiveness over their Soviet counterparts. But in urban, street-to-street fighting the ratio was about 1:1. Germany could not afford anything even remotely approaching that 1:1 ratio, which is why something other than street-to-street fighting was necessary.

Von Manstein wrote that during the Barbarossa operation of '41 there had been a perfectly good opportunity to take Leningrad. But that this was wasted, allowing the Soviets to fortify it.

The other option would have been to do a better job of putting it under siege. This would have entailed tightening the cordon around the city, preventing just about anything from making it through. I think there was a case when Germany attempted exactly that. However, at the same time the Soviets were attempting to break the siege, so each side’s offensive encountered the other’s. From a tactical view there may have been more Germany could have done. But I think the real problem was strategic: the Soviet Union had too much military strength. A discussion on how to address that problem is probably outside the scope of this thread.

@KurtGodel7:

@Red:

Perhaps the greatest A&A gameplay weakness is that tanks and aircraft don’t take attrition losses.  Historically, even very successful attacks severely depleted these forces.  Examples would be heavy losses in Poland and France as well as pilot/aircraft losses in several of the major early war IJN/USN encounters.Â

Aircraft were particularly prone to heavy attrition just operating.  And they were easy to target in suprise attacks at the outbreak of war.  But since the game allows them to be chosen last they don’t attrit.  Plus they can be held away from the front.  This is why the USSR’s air force is almost completely absent in the initial placement.

Perhaps the greatest A&A gameplay weakness is that tanks and aircraft don’t take attrition losses.

They do in my rules set!  8-) Every round of ground or naval combat begins with the dogfight phase. In the dogfight phase, all units present fire at their air combat values. Any hits you receive must be applied to air units. Once you have applied a single anti-air hit to one of your air units, you must apply additional hits to that same unit until it’s dead, or until combat ends. (The same is true if you apply an anti-land hit to one of your land units, an anti-naval hit to one of your ships, or an anti-sub hit to one of your submarines.)

There are other ways aircraft can be destroyed as well. In strategic bombing raids, there is one round of dogfight phase, followed by strategic bombers attacking their targets using their strategic bombing values. Strategic bombing raids do permanent damage. For every ten points of damage a production facility experiences in a strategic bombing raid, it is reduced by one level. While nations receive some money from territory income, most of their late game production will come from production facilities. A sufficiently powerful strategic bombing offensive can destroy all those facilities; as well as the underlying cities in which they would exist. The correct defense against a strategic bombing offensive is to build air superiority planes; such as piston fighters or jet fighters.

There is a second way of defending oneself from strategic bombing raids: airfield attacks. To initiate an airfield attack, send your planes to a space with enemy aircraft, and declare an airfield attack. There will be two rounds of dogfight phase. Any of your planes which survived that dogfight may launch one attack against enemy aircraft, using their land combat values.

Interesting. At one time I had an idea for a variant of A&A where unit placement was at the start of your turn and the purchase phase was at the end. The units purchased were considered “in production” and set aside until placement at the beginning of the next turn. While the units are in production the enemy can strategic bomb them before they even get deployed.

By doing this the intention was to make strategic bombing more important and more costly. The other difference was that interceptors defended at full combat value and escorts attacked at full combat value for one round. I have never play-tested this so it might be a game breaker. It seems kind of fun to me though.

As Worsham said, adding jets would have made it too easy: so many of us rank the 262 as the best of the war. He was mixing it up. Made me think a bit.

My first interest in WW2 was planes.

Thank you for your time and effort Worsham.

Hey Garg.  Man I wish I could ask him.  I spent one weekend with him at his cottage the week after the at the time Premier Bill Davis was there.  A few years later he found out he had aggressive cancer.  Being a man’s man he didn’t want anybody to see him in his weak and dying state and died with only his wife at his side a few weeks later.  I’ll ask my mom tho, we were just talking about them as her 90th b-day was last week and mom went.

Man that Berlin Air Lift was one hell of a heroic effort.  A pivotal moment in the cold war in my opinion.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

As a Canadian, it never felt like we were the big guy the poor little USA was hitting the back of the head with a chair.  Of course as a product of the Canadian education system I feel this way.  It was never emphasised it was a US attack on Britain as Canada didn’t exist for another 55 years.  Yeah, we all knew 1867 was our Day 1 as a country but that was merely a technicality.  Of course in the 70s Canada was a great deal more lefty and somewhat….I wouldn’t say anti-American, but perhaps a bit defensive at perceived slights by the US.  Which was weird for me as I grew up 30 KM from the US and most TV on the rabbit ears was from Buffalo NY.

Note to USA.  I can remember not too long ago being pissed about a Canadian dollar only being worth 65 cents in the US.   Now its worth 1.05 or so.  You guys are like cousins who have bad spending habits.  I like you guys but you’all need to take note that you are slipping behind the others relatively speaking.  Having them catch up is natural, starting to watch them pull up then ahead shouldn’t be so natural.

I was more referring to the British Empire as a whole as its resources were tied up elsewhere in the world. What is facinating about the war of 1812 is how quickly the 13 colonies went from being British themselves in 1776 to more or less siding with Napoleon against the British less than 40 years later. Another interesting thought it that had the French actually won the Napoleonic wars I have little doubt that the fledgling United States would of eventually come under the dominion of the French Empire.

@balungaloaf:

Edit: Let’s not include hidden messages (political) in your posts. What happens is people who are on the other side start a flame war.

:lol:

This is exactly what I talk about with the bias around here.  B isn’t starting a flame war, but someone who responds to that nonsense is?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, the WW2 in HD is on Xbox Live.  I watched the preview and was tempted to get it, but since I don’t own an HD TV, it would be semipointless.