Posts made by KaLeu

Once more, thank you for doing this. A minor correction: I’d think that the events you describe for April 10, 1942, actually happened on April 10, 1940.

@suprise:

April 5 1941 Russia and Yugoslavia signed a treaty of friendship and nonaggression, which the Germans condemned.

In a curious coincidence, another treaty was signed between the USSR and Yugoslavia (effectively, the provisional government established by the later president Tito) exactly 4 years later on April 5, 1945. The treaty allowed Soviet troops to enter Yugoslavia, which they had in fact already done in late 1944, and they were supposed to leave after concluding their operations (which they reluctantly did).

March 24-25, 1944, was the night when 76 allied POWs escaped from Stalag Luft III, an event on which the famous movie “The Great Escape”, featuring many famous action actors of the 1960s, was based. In an impressive operation, they had been building many long tunnels, most of which were discovered by the Germans. The escapees used one of the remaining tunnels, nicknamed “Harry”, but the tunnel turned out to be a few yards too short to reach the cover of the surrounding forest, and not as many POWs were able to get away as planned. Also, they faced difficulties after escaping, primarily because it was extremely cold for March. Unfortunately, only three of them managed to avoid recapture and managed to leave German-occupied territory. Of the remaining 73, 50 were executed by the Germans in a flagrant violation of the Geneva convention, at Hitler’s orders and against the advice of several senior German officers.
There’s an excellent reference about this event at http://www.elsham.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gt_esc/.

Good luck with your game, Surprise Attack, and thanks for doing this!

It’s rather off topic considering the question asked by the original poster, but as far as a potential Soviet attack on Western Europe is concerned, I find it very hard to believe that the nuclear bomb would have stopped Stalin. We’re not talking about a man here who was particularly concerned about the possible death of millions of his soldiers or civilians. Besides, at the time that Stalin would potentially arrive at such a decision, it wasn’t at all clear how devastating the nuclear bomb would be - but it was clear that they wouldn’t be produced by the dozen any time soon.
Say that it’s July 1, 1945. The Trinity test hasn’t happened yet, so nobody knows whether or not the bomb will even work. US troops stationed in Europe are being relocated to the Pacific to finish off Japan, and the USSR military has an overwhelming numerical superiority. If Stalin intended to conquer the West, that would seem like a perfect opportunity.

So why didn’t he? I suppose that only historical research could provide the answer, and maybe it already has, now that many the old Soviet archives are accessible - I’m no expert there. But there are two reasons I can think of:

1. While the communist doctrine of the first half of the century was aimed at world domination, the typical route to achieve that would have been by means of worker’s revolutions similar to that in Russia itself. The USSR was more than willing to promote that, typically by supporting communist parties around the world. Stalin believed military conflict with the West to be inevitable, but didn’t intend to start an all-out war unless the West had been weakened by internal dissension.
2. At the end of World War II, Stalin’s grip on the Soviet Union itself had been severely compromised by the events of the war. During his reign of terror of the late 1930’s, he had been in full control - but the purges of those years had severely weakened the Red Army and the entire administration of the country. The German attack left Stalin with no other choice than to allow more freedom, to loosen the reins to a degree that was required to fight the war in a somewhat effective manner. So he had to delegate power to others to a degree that he wouldn’t have been comfortable with in peace time. The war created celebrities and heroes, and in 1945, Stalin was probably not even in a position to start a war with the West - there would have been a lot of opposition, and it might have led to his downfall. It took Stalin several years to reassert his power - a prime example was the case of the highly popular field marshal Georgy Zhukov, who was relegated to a relatively unimportant post.

@Der:

@Herr:

I have one little nagging question, though: how many stars are there on your US flag? There’s only a corner of it in the picture, but the rows seem to alternate like they do on modern flags.

You know what? You’re right - that US flag is probably modern - I didn’t even think about the stars. Now I’ll have to go looking for a 40’s one!

You’re not alone there. Quite a few movie directors used the modern flag when it should have been the 48 star flag. Just one of my pet peeves.

Thanks! Now after my next game as Japan, I can feign expertise by making a casual remark about considering a JTDTM.  :-D

Absolutely beautiful - it must be a special experience for anyone to play in a room like that. It’s very impressive how you re-created an atmosphere that belongs to that era. Even the woodwork, though I’m far from an expert in that field, gives an impression of being from the 1930’s or 1940’s.

I have one little nagging question, though: how many stars are there on your US flag? There’s only a corner of it in the picture, but the rows seem to alternate like they do on modern flags.

Only a few of them are war related, but all of them are definitely from the era. Incredible color photographs - enjoy!

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/07/26/captured-america-in-color-from-1939-1943/

(a bit slow to load, but worth waiting for)

@ABWorsham:

Any of you visit the WW2 discussion post on this site?

The WW2 history section you mean? Yes, sometimes.

@Uncrustable:

@Herr:

@Imperious:

Can the neutral territories be occupied when theirs no IPC points in it? (Eire, Rio de Oro, Angola, Mozambique)

yea sure, as long as they have a name attached to it.

Actually - no. The 1942 rules say: “You cannot attack neutral territories, move through them, or move over them with air units.”

i think your reading out of context ;)
they are talking about a 42’ modification project which adds neutral powers to the game among other things

Oh, I see. Thanks for the heads up, I was unaware of such a project and assumed that the large map was intended for the original AA 1942 game.

@Imperious:

Can the neutral territories be occupied when theirs no IPC points in it? (Eire, Rio de Oro, Angola, Mozambique)

yea sure, as long as they have a name attached to it.

Actually - no. The 1942 rules say: “You cannot attack neutral territories, move through them, or move over them with air units.”

My condolences to you, surprise attack. All the best to you and your family.

As a belated entry for March 3: on that day in 1945, the RAF mistakenly bombed a residential area in the Hague, the Netherlands, killing over 500 people. The intended target were the V2 launch pads in a nearby park, but a sequence of errors resulted in a tragedy.
The V2’s were entirely unaffected, and the Germans resumed launching them the same night, while also exploiting the event for propaganda purposes.

Try Bangkok!

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/life/hitler-chic-trend-138530?hpt=hp_bn8

“It’s not that I like Hitler”, Hut insists. “But he looks funny and the shirts are very popular with young people.”

Sea zone 12 does not share a border with Western Europe, so the American player would be correct: the German fighters would need two moves to land in Western Europe after attacking sea zone 12, so the intended German move would not be legal.
I’m assuming that you’re talking about a situation where German doesn’t hold Algeria. If Germany holds Algeria at the start of its turn, then the German fighters could land in Algeria, making the attack legal.

That German move would not be legal. Combat move is a separate phase, so Germany first needs to do its combat move, then all combat happens, and then, there’s the non-combat move. You can’t do a second combat move after combat.

Tanks may blitz through an empty territory and then attack another territory that they can reach, but in your example, West Russia is clearly not empty, so that doesn’t apply.

@Red:

Honorable (?) mention:  Graf Spee/Admiral Scheer/Lutzow “pocket battleships.”  Having only a single triple turret at each of the ship is risky.  Having only 11" guns to employ against real battleships in WWII is not a viable idea.  Combine this with armour that can’t withstand 8" cruiser fire and you have a problem even against a couple of cruisers.  To be fair, these ships were really very heavy cruisers and they did have speed.

Those weren’t battleships. The German navy never classified them as such, and in fact, weren’t allowed to have any ships that could reasonably be considered battleships at the time these ships were built (under the terms of the Versailles treaty).
The term “pocket battleship” was a British invention.

While “ugly” is a word that I’d prefer to avoid since that appears to be a matter of taste, I think that the British Revenge class battleships could qualify as inadequate. Dating back from the WW I era, they saw action in WW II, but were badly outdated by then. That’s not so strange of course, but I wonder why this class was created in the first place: the earlier Queen Elizabeth class ships were actually better!

Thank you for the responses, gentlemen.

I’m afraid that my primary approach to this game, or any game, is aimed at winning it. So when a situation arises where a certain strategy looks good, I will pursue that strategy, even if it’s the same strategy as in earlier games. Case in point: when certain events have occurred that seem to weaken the German position (be it through their own choices or through misfortune), then this would encourage me to try KGF, rather than look the other way. Maybe my point of view would be a different one if I had played the game more often, but generally speaking I’m not adverse to a quick win.

On the other hand, if it is indeed true that KJF is not necessarily more promising than KJF, but merely the better explored option, than that would be excellent news, and an indicator that the game is fairly well balanced and that more than one strategy is viable. So it’s good that this thread exists for doing some of that exploring.

I tend to agree that going KJF all-out on UK1 would be too early, but if I believed that the circumstances were favorable to a KJF strategy (quite apart from what those circumstances would be), then I would at least try to purchase units that I could use in KJF while not being entirely useless in KGF either. An India IC on UK1 would be too much of a commitment before Japan has moved, but I’d consider buying at least one fighter and some ground forces, and postpone Atlantic fleet purchases.

Africa – I agree that you wouldn’t want that entire continent firmly in German hands for the remainder of the game, but I suppose that you can still try to sink the German Mediterranean fleet early while aiming for KJF as a general strategy. With no more German forces going to Africa, it wouldn’t be too much of a drain on Allied resources to counter what’s already there.

So, in general terms, if Germany looks strong after its first round, I would lean towards KJF as the UK, without fully committing to it. Then, suppose that Japan would be less successful in its first round, the decision could be finalized on US1.

It’s not that I have a whole lot of experience at the game, but from a general strategic point of view, I’m a little surprised at the options offered for Germany in the poll, because all of them are possibilities that seem suboptimal for Germany.

My reasoning is:

1. There seems to be a consensus that overall, “Kill Germany First” (KGF) is a more promising Allied strategy than “Kill Japan First” (KJF).
2. If Germany doesn’t do very well in round 1 (for instance, because several of the options mentioned in the poll, actually happened), then it stands to reason that KGF becomes even more promising. So why go KJF in that case?
3. Conversely, if Germany is very successful (as in: destroying the SZ2 UK fleet; inflicting heavy losses on Russia; taking Egypt with strong forces remaining), then KGF would become more difficult.
4. The situation that then exists, on the UK’s first turn, may indicate that KJF could be a viable alternative as compared to the KGF possibilities that remain.

So basically, I would consider KJF only when the Allies ended up in a situation where it looks better than KGF.

Thanks for keeping this going, it makes for an interesting read.

An addition for January 27, 1945: on this day, Soviet forces reached the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, liberating about 7,000 prisoners that remained there.

May they rest in peace. But it is a little strange that the article describes this as “one of the worst naval disasters of the second world war”. Numerous other ships went down with far more casualties.