• GB & US vs G & J feels like an allied win to me, albeit a much tougher one. Allied industrial might, wartime innovation, superior manpower reserves and access to global resources would have been significant advantages.

    If the axis had been able to swing conquered peoples behind them that would have evened things up a bit, particularly in the manpower area. But even where they had a case for being “liberators” (e.g.J expelling European imperialists) their militaristic culture often ended up alienation local populations. Although, there are, of course, many exceptions.

    Leaving the only axis opportunity for victory being a quick conquest of GB. I do not believe G ever had a realistic opportunity to invade GB nor J to conquer India.

  • '22 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    Thinking Axis “win” at least to the extent Germany could sustain a defensive posture and keep the Allies at bay long enough to force a settlement, whether by Germany getting the bomb or by Allied casualties being too high.

    Japan would be destroyed.


  • Yes Japan is in the war


  • Franco steadfastly refused to go to war because he didn’t think Germany could take Britain in the long run, So I’m not so sure it’s a simple win or lose for either side. Germany was stretched to it’s limit as far as ability to project power at sea, and any attempt to expand that would take a good deal of time.

    Also in early 1941 the US was planning on raising 215 divisions, so they envisioned a long hard slogging war. They also envisioned a Russian defeat. It was only after the successes of the Russians that the 90 division gamble was decided on. I think the US was unique in the war in that they decided on a strategy of strategic air and stuck with it thru out the entire war, and I’m not sure the Germans could have withstood it. It just would have meant much more American blood would have been shed.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Good Points WG

    US went too heavy on air and ran light on infantry. “Citizen Soldier” by Ambrose explains it well imo


  • I think it was a calculated decision as well as both a brave and wise one (in hindsight). Stalin was pretty furious with the 90 division gamble. He accused the US of trying to win the war with US money and material and Russian blood. Which we kind of did, and what did the Russians get in return….boom, banned from the Olympics! I’ll have to read Citizen Soldier.

  • '17 '16 '15

    LOL ! Yea Banned ! Why does their Hockey team get to play ? Ha Ha Ha ! Not laughing at you Ghost. Just the whole program in general. : )

    Yea I found it a good read. Might be a little ethno USA but he is an American so …

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I think Japan gets dominated, but Fortress Europe is way too strong.

    I think worst case for Axis Europe is that a successful peace is achieved.  The might of German engineering piling in to aircraft and submarines, solely focused against the British will be a feat to achieve.

    Further, I don’t believe Germany and USA end up going to war.

    Let’s look at a few key points:
    -With no Russia war, Hitler has no reason to DOW USA in 1941, Japan stands on its own.
    -The USA whilst still pro-britain, stays inclined to avoid the europe mess, now that it’s dealing with a pacific one.
    -Without War between Russia/USA, there is no war between USA/Germany
    -Further, Without Russia at the allied conferences, adamant about only accepting unconditional surrender, the door to possible peace is left open.
    -England suffers blockade, and the blitz doesnt end in May 1941, its goes on and on and on, with a possible sealion at some point.

    Japan folds in 44


  • What if Russia and Germany didnt go to war, could the Allies have won?

    I don’t understand this question.
    Who would have started what kind of war?

    If this is Germany against UK and France where UK and France start the War, it would be unlikely for Allies to win and would end in a stall like 1914/18 with frontlines arround the Magginotline.

    If Germany would have made Preparation to Fall into France?
    See History.
    If Germany continued to finish off UK.
    London would now be known as Reichsprotektorat Londonichen.


  • @aequitas:

    London would now be known as Reichsprotektorat Londonichen.

    :-P


  • I don’t understand why people keep suggesting that Britain would be doomed. Germany had it’s chance to invade the UK and could not do it. Even without Russia in the war, Germany was doomed, US material and if needed blood would ensure that. US involvement was inevitable, we simply could not allow our lend-lease (investments) go to waste. This is evidenced by the fact that we had plans to invade Europe in early 1941. These plans assumed Russia was conquered by Germany. It was only after the Russians showed they were not so easily beaten that we revised them.


  • If Germany would have leaned his whole interest of taking England, it would have conquered it.
    Because of Germanys half hearted decision we assume today it would have ended badly for G.
    Germany was in conquere mode since 1938.
    They had everything they need to take down England.

    But Germany had less interest for England.

    Maybe they would have called it Reichsprotekriat Hess-don :wink:


  • I think it’s silly to state that Germany didn’t give the Battle of Britain their best effort. They simply could not do it. They didn’t have the Navy or the troop transports to get their army to Britain, they could barely keep the Africa Corps supplied. I guess Germany didn’t really want to conquer Russia either…did they sand bagged that one too?


  • You are saying it War Ghost.
    If G had been dedicated to UK as they were to France or Russia '41, it would have been a different gameplay. The same applies to the DAK.
    But UK and DAK were side shows for A.H. And he lost interest for Russia after '41.
    It was Goebbels who shout out and declared total war in '43.

    The Set up for an SL invasion would have been totally different. Instead he let fisherboats turned into minesweepers clear a path for his Invasion force?
    Common… 8-) :?


  • I find it ironic that you’re using game terms to describe the German war effort, i.e. “would have been a different gameplay” and “The set up would have been totally different.” I would agree that Sea Lion in Axis and Allies is much harder to resist than it was in WW II. In the real war Germany didn’t have the infrastructure or the resources to make an amphibious invasion on that scale. It was a three year effort for the US who had far greater resources than Germany. I suspect we won’t come to an agreement on this, so I’ll defer to history.


  • I keep it simple and in laconic sentenses.

    It is interesting that you say Germany did not have the resources and Infrastructure.
    How again did they came to Norway again??

    If G. really wanted to come over they would have done the job.

    Hier guet Division Brandenburg.

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    Without 3/4 of Gremany’s forces devoted to Russia, the UK would have been a speed bump if they didn’t capitulate first.

  • 2025

    @aequitas:

    It is interesting that you say Germany did not have the resources and Infrastructure.
    How again did they came to Norway again??

    9 500 Germans come to Norway in a surprise attack riding on the deck of Destroyers, and 500 airborne as follow up forces. 9 500 men in the first wave was what the Germans actually had the resources to do in 1940. This was enough against Norway 1940 because we had Quisling to open the gate. Of course we will never know, but I hardly doubt Churchill would surrendered England to 9 500 Huns. If AH had choosen to attack UK and not Norway, since he only had ships for one invasion. After the attack on Norway, most of the German navy was sunk. Of course AH could launch an airborne attack, like the one on Crete, dropping like 500 paratroops in every wave. Good enough for Crete, but if that should work for UK, he would need an English Quisling to open the gate, or else every Hun that landed would just be another POW.

    edit. And most importent, UK is an island, Norway is not. Norway had backstabbing Sweden as neigbour, leting the Huns use their railway to support the attack on Norway, and even our Danish brothers let the Huns use their airfields to support the Bombing campaign on Norway, so we faced like 3 fronts, or even 4 fronts if we count Quisling and his 5 columns of officer traitors. It was like a civil war, in many battles there were Norwegians on both sides. UK would not have that problem. UK is an island that has not been invaded since 1066. It is a reason AH never even tried to invade it, he was not a fool. He was many sinister things, but not a fool


  • Oh Student and Otto would have rocked the Show in England :-D

  • 2025

    @aequitas:

    Oh Student and Otto would have rocked the Show in England :-D

    I think you mean Franz Six, he was supposed to rule UK after a successful invasion.

    After reading a bit more on the theme Sea Lion, I dont belive it would have been doable. The Royal Navy would be stronger than a combined fleet of Germany, Italy, Russia and captured French ships. And the UK fighter production sky rocketed in 1940. But most important, Germany would not get selv propelled landing crafts before the summer of 1941, before that they had to use towed barges. And even if Germany had the resources, UK had plans to use poison gas and burning water, if their island were in fact attacked. Search Petroleum war, the Brits had plans to soak the channel with petroleum and set it afire, burning water. And even if they didn’t, the defenses of the English coast was stronger than that of Normandy 1944, and we know how much power the Allies had to use knocking down that. So basically, I dont think Sea Lion was doable. Neither did AH and his generals.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 2
  • 7
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
  • 6
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.7k

Users

40.4k

Topics

1.8m

Posts