• '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.

  • 2024 '23 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    After searching the web a bit about any Sea Lion possibilities, I’ve mainly found two opinions, neither of which favors German chances. Some say it couldn’t have been pulled off in the first place, others that the Germans might have landed in Southern England but could not have supplied their landing force adequately and would have been defeated. And that’s a very crude summary of numerous articles that exist on the topic. It also seems rather obvious that allowing the BEF to escape from Dunkirk was a critical mistake if Sea Lion was really intended: after the invasion, the Germans would have had to fight the same troops they had failed to annihilate when they had the opportunity.

    A much better option for Germany, and one that could also have worked in the real war, would have been to step up the battle of the Atlantic, notably the U-boat campaign. Britain was heavily dependent on American imports at the time, and cutting that life line could have forced them into negotiations.

  • 2024 '23 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17

    Oh, on a side note:

    @Narvik:

    UK is an island that has not been invaded since 1066.

    British national pride typically ignores what happened in 1688. But maybe we’d better not derail the thread.


  • @Narvik:

    @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.

    Nah i meant Otto Skorzeny and Karl Student dough :-)

    I think we have to lay down the perimeter for an SL.

    Starting Year 1941/42
    France defeated? Yes
    Political situation is ? Russia stays out US stays out
    With DAK and N.Africa campagne

    Additional Points??


  • It’s unlikely that Germany could have succesfully invaded and occupied Britain in the period shortly after they effectively allowed the British army to escape from Dunkirk. Had they managed to capture most or all of the British army, things might have been a little different.

    But as others say, Germany didn’t really have an invasion fleet ready for such a purpose. They would have required complete control of the skies, and somehow been able to clear most or all of the British fleet from the channel for a period of at least a week or so.

    Another big question, how does the relationship with the Soviet Union develop if peace prevails in the East? The exchange of food and materials. Would Germany have been able to convince Stalin to swing his army south to the Middle East or even India to threaten British interests there?

    The best Germany could hope for in a war that doesn’t include an eastern front is a prolonged stalemate where the political situation in Britain/USA changes to governments more willing to compromise. There is a good chance Churchill might have been toppled had operation Dynamo failed. But an all out axis victory was always out of the question, imho. They needed either to quickly knock the Soviet Union out and grab all its resources, or have a prolonged stalemate where the west tires of war.

  • 2025

    @Herr:

    Oh, on a side note:

    @Narvik:

    UK is an island that has not been invaded since 1066.

    British national pride typically ignores what happened in 1688. But maybe we’d better not derail the thread.

    LOL, I guess you are from the Netherlands. Then 1688 it is. UK was an island that had not been invaded since 1688.


  • And it should be noted that the 1688 Dutch “invasion” of England wasn’t an invasion in a conventional military sense.  It was actually a kind of coup d’etat, with backing from English Parliamentarians; it involved 15,000 mercenary troops on the Dutch side, but it wasn’t a militarily opposed invasion and it was virtually bloodless.  As far as I know, the last militarily opposed invasion of England was the Norman Conquest of 1066.  Ironically, it crossed the Channel in the opposite direction of 1944’s Operation Overlord.

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 2
  • 7
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 5
  • 1.1k
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

73

Online

17.7k

Users

40.4k

Topics

1.8m

Posts