America 1939-1943

@CWO:

I’d say it’s one of those exceptions that proves the rule.  If it took 70,000 to 300,000 Persians (Herodotus claims a figure as high as two-and-a-half million) to kill 300 Spartans, that’s actually a pretty pathetic performance on the part of the Persians.

True. However, speaking just about shots and arrows, the Persians did get them all.

Thank you Toblerone. I mentioned it, as I was sure the British Army did something like that after WW1 and the horrific losses small villages suffered if a battle went badly. I know you can see memorials in little villages and the long lists make sad reading, without a list of names with the same surname.

@CWO:

A similar situation existed in the Confederacy in the early stages of the U.S. Civil War, where it was believed that the material advantages of the North (in terms of industrial capacity, natural resources and sheer population numbers) could be overcome by (if I recall the quote correctly) “the gallantry and fighting spirit of the Southern Gentleman.”  The contrary (and ultimately correct) view was expressed by a certain Northerner to a friend he had in the Confederacy: “No nation of agriculturalists has ever defeated a nation of industrialists.  You are bound to fail.”

That’s an excellent example. I looked up the Civil War and found that the North experienced twice as many combat deaths as the South. That ratio would seem to partially justify Southern leaders’ faith in their strategy. However, the overall ratio of military deaths was 1.4 to 1. The reason for this is that so many soldiers on both sides died from disease, exposure, and other causes.

Later in the war, the North increasingly benefited from activities which did not necessarily involve a clash between the main Northern and Southern armies. The increasingly effective naval blockade is a good example of this, as are some of the coastal raids the North performed later in the war. The Southern economic collapse which resulted from the naval blockade is still another example. Later in the war, Grant capitalized on the Northern advantage in manpower by sending several secondary forces to invade the South, while the main Southern forces were occupied by their Northern counterparts.

The Panzer IV is getting a lot of love in this poll. The Panzer III in the early years of the war was the German’s tank killer tank with it’s long 50mm gun. The early versions of the Panzer IV had a short 75mm gun.

I’ll be posting the mid war years 41-43 tanks soon.

I know you didn’t ask me but, If I could have set up a rondezvous with a supply ship, with food, fuel and ammo (although I am pretty sure the GS had plenty even after the fight) and had enough food and fuel to make that rondevous then I might have risked making a run for it, at night, trying to avoid a general fight. Get past the cruisers, try to out run them and lose them if possible. But it would have been difficult and all the cruisers had to do was shadow. German (or even Spanish)  ports were awfully far away. And eventually something bigger would show up if I couldn’t lose them.

If I could not arrange the resupply then no, it would have been a waste to even try
and ship’s captains rarely make suicide charges…some do but not most. A ship would have to have a decent shot at making some friendly port.

And the River Plate while wide at its mouth and looks very big in maps/photos (Montivedio is on the big entrence) is not a very manueverable body of water, (we were in port at Buenos Aires once) you would be forced to stay in the channel for quite some distance and given how the Brits fight they probably would have violated the soverignty and fired on the ship in the channel. Who knows?

I spent 6 years at sea and any sailor with an ounce of salt learns to respect the power and danger of the seas. Sailors have two enemies, the other guy on the other ship and the ocean. Get beaten by one and you might not (if they don’t pick you up) survive the other.

German ships did elude the British Radar many times during the war, not sure if any of these ships had it.

You know the more I think about it making a run was probably, given the cirumstances, not a good idea.

still amazing how the Finns held off such large numbers of soviet troops with those ski battalions of theirs

And it is a big difference if those German ships are new (build in 1939, or something), because a lot of British ships were older then that.

When I lived in Orange County Ca, I remember seeing the platforms for old ww2 anti air guns. Same on the “Queen Mary” docked there.

I think it’s correct in the game to have the guns. Because the nature of the game can cange the way the war really played out, america would have had many more batteries than it did based on the war. We did have anit air batteries but not even close to the amount in England.

For instance, in one of my games, my German airforce bombed the American fleet in the gulf of mexico. If Germany would have had long range bombers like the B-17 and/or carriers capable or bombing the East or West Coast, Americans response would naturally been to have more AA batteries. That’s merely my speculation though.