Posts made by Narvik

@Gargantua:

I agree the battle for Moscow was critical.  But I believe the battle for Britain was far more important.

Had the axis won over Britain, and either starved/surrendered her out, or subsequently conquered it.  The axis would have had total domination over all of Europe, with no need to keep anything in check, and the subsequent battle of Moscow would have been a decisive axis victory.

German air power would have been entirely thrown at the Reds, and I think it would have been enough…

Nahhh… I don’t agree

Lets imagine the Germans did conquer England too in the 1940 campaign, what would it change ? Would Germany suddenly get all the Middle East oil delivered on their doorstep ? Or would they be stuck with a worthless island with 50 million hungry Brits who did not grow their own food, but had to be fed by their Conquer ? It would for sure make for a fast and early US entry into the war.

How would this change the Barbarossa campaign ? Would they need less troops for occupation duty in France, Norway and the Balkans, or more, now that they had to occupy UK too? Would Germany still need to build an Atlantic Wall to keep the Yankees and Canadians out of Europe ?

but for the sake of discussion, lets say a possible peace treaty with UK and France would keep USA and Canada out, and give Germany 50 more divisions to use in Russia, how would that turn out ? In the historical Barbarossa they were not short of men, they were short of supply and oil. The railroads and dirtroads in Russia could barely supply the historical force, how could they succeed in supplying 50 more divisions ? The Germans did not loose the Battle of Moscow because they were short of men and tanks, they lost because Hitler made a U-turn and redirected all his combat forces into…Ukraine,…and not because the cornfields of Ukraine suddenly was identified as the ultimate decisive spot in the world, but because Hitler suddenly got fixed with the idea that Moscow was a trap. And even if Ukraine was a great victory, at this point the Germans were for sure short of supply and oil, since in the winter a truck use seven times more fuel to drive a set distance.

So what I don’t get, is why should Hitler not do the same mistake again, if UK was occupied or not ?

It was of course the battle of Moscow, since it told who would win in the main and decisive front, and making all other fronts irrelevant

The game is designed to be balanced, so if both buy the same stuff, it will be a stalemate for sure.

The best land combo IMHO is 4 inf, 1 art and 1 tank, now you got both punch and fodder to a fair cost.
But if the front moves away from you, you will need speed and range too, then buy 6 mech and 1 tank. After that you need planes

@ABWorsham:

Churchill proposed an invasion of Northern Norway and Sweden in 1939 to remove half of Germany iron ore. As a new leader he did not have credibility to get this invasion quickly planned before the Germans reacted.

How does the war progress if the Allied Expeditionary Force invades Norway and Sweden?

I was reading this over again. I don’t think it would be possible with an Allied invasion during 1939. Since the mountains are pretty much impassable during winter, which is from October to April, the invasion would have to be done from the start of the war in September and finished before October. This was not likely to happen. The first window of opportunity opened in November when Russia attacked Finland. But in the case of Finland, snow and ice was a necessity for a successful campaign, since that part of Finland is impassable swamps and marshes during summer. In Norway it is the other way around, since mountains are impassable during winter. And that give Britain a first possible D-day on April 8th 1940, the day before Germany did actually attack Norway.

The reason Britain did not attack on April 8th is IMHO that they got reports of a German breakout into the sea, so they ditched the infantry already onboard, and sailed to intercept the German fleet. But as w know, the Germans had then walked down the gangway in all major Norwegian ports. And they could do so because the ports were not defended. But here comes the twist. Next day Britain sailed in 25 000 troops bound for the Narvik area, but they was not able to kick out the 1900 Germans, because at that time Britain lacked landing ships and landing crafts. And you can not amphibious assault a defended coast without landing crafts, as proven in the Normandy landings 1944.

So basically the 25 000 Allied troops sat in the port of Harstad waiting for landing crafts to be build and this took 7 weeks, before they ware able to invade Narvik late in June , by then defended by 40 Germans. In the meantime 10 000 Norwegians equipped with winter gear and trained in mountain warfare, were pushing the bulk of the Germans towards the Swedish border.

I figure, if the Brits had landed in Narvik April 8th 1940 and walked down the gangway as friends, the Germans would for sure be cut of from the iron ore. But if the Norwegian socialist government had declared war, then I cant see how the Brits could have been able to break out from Narvik and cross the mountain range over to Sweden. None of the total 35 000 Brits, French and Polish soldiers in Norway 1940 had winter equipment nor training in mountain warfare. The last blizzard was in may, and they would be stuck in Narvik until then, surrounded by a Norwegian mountain division. And on the other side of the border, 320 000 Swedish soldiers, also trained in winter and mountain warfare, would wait for them, protecting the iron mines. So Churchills plan could only work if Norway and Sweden did cooperate volunterely

@toblerone77:

To the best of my knowledge Hitler did not like four-engined bombers because it basically cost 2-2.5 Heinkels for one Condor for example.

And that is good wisdom. If you want as much bang for your 60 IPC as possible, you buy 6 Fighters, not 5 Bombers. You only buy Bombers if you need the extra range. Fortunately to Germany, everything they needed to destroy were in their neighborhood, so no need for the extra range

Suggestions for Sweden, green, and Spain or Portugal brown

Just buy AA WWI 1914, and you get lots of pieces you can use for Turkey, Sweden, Spain etc

Attached a pic of the Turkey units,

@knp7765:

It’s any territory that has either a UK symbol or Canada symbol.
One thing I have seen happen a few times is Italy dropping an infantry on Cyprus just to deny UK that NO and really ruffle their feathers.

Good thinking out ot the Box, I’ll try that NeXT game :-)

@CWO:

A British invasion of Norway wouldn’t necessarily have made Norway jump into the Axis camp.  For example, when Britain occupied Iceland to preclude the possibility of Germany seizing it, Iceland didn’t react by becoming an ally of Germany.Â

I believe a Brit invasion of Norway would start a civil war. Half the Norwegian labor force were sailors, and depended on trade with USA and Britain, and the Norwegian king and Queen were in close family with the British royalty, so this part of Norway would for sure support Britain no matter what. On the other hand, we have major Qwizling, leader of the Nazi party, and he got support from half the Norwegian Army. They did not resist the German invasion, some places they even helped the Germans. And as soon the war ended, they joined SS and went to the Eastern Front to kill commies.

Sweden is another issue. the Swedish King was a true Nazi and even supported the German attack on Norway, making bad relation between us for many years after WWII. Sweden were also depended on trading iron ore, steel and weapons against food and oil, so if the convoy line to Germany was cut, Sweden would starve.

Depending on when Britain would invade Narvik, the mountains are impassable during winter, I figure they would be kicked out pretty fast.

@Imperious:

What is a four engined bomber again, why did Germany not built them?

This is an Attached pic of a German 4 engine bomber, proving that Germany did build them from 1937 and onwards.

The question should be, why didn’t they build a million 4 engine bombers ?

And the answer on that should be, the Germans are thieves, they conquer and occupy other peoples territory, enslave the people and steal their resources. Now, if the Germans were Destroyers of the Worlds, then they would build a million 4 engine Bombers and ruin everything within range

Its a stupid rule. Not even in the real war could a single Destroyer deny a fleet of hundreds of ships to embark soldiers from a port. Its like a battalion of Marines would not dare to embark a Tranny in Los Angeles because a Japanese destroyer was spotted 200 miles off the West coast, and the Marines did not have faith in that the hundreds of Battleships, Cruisers, Fleet Carries with hundreds of planes, Destroyers etc were able to protect the Port of LA.

derogatory bedlam, fix with house rules

Of course the Germans could have build 4 engined Bombers if they wanted to. A chimp could do that.

But in this specific war, the German war objective and goal was to conquer and occupy territory, not to destroy it.

However they did build the Condor in case they needed to bomb USA. But this would not be necessary before they had actually conquered most of Europe and Asia. But at that time they got something better than bombers, namely rockets V2

@KurtGodel7:

With a different president, the war with Germany need not have happened at all. It would not have happened with a moderate or conservative president.

Now, that is pure speculation, man.

How could a great power like USA 1940 not take part in a world wide conflict about world domination and survival ?
Even with Alf Landan as president.
Would there be no war against terror if Obama was President during 911 and not Bush ?

In the 1930s the War Department of the US had the notorious color plans.
Green for a war against Mexico.
Black for a war against Germany
Orange for a war against Japan.
Red for a war against Britain.

Since may 1939, the Rainbow plans had been prepared by the Joint Army and Navy Board. This would have happened no matter if Roosevelt or Landan or somebody else was President.

I guess the only thing that could have delayed a US entry, was if Japan ignored the Pacific and attacked Russia only, and Germany ignored Britain and attacked Russia only. But of course the Great Powers USA, Britain and France could never accept this kind of new world order, so sooner or later USA would have to enter the war, at least for survival as a nation.

Since I actually come from Norway and spend some of my military service in the Narvik area, I think this is an intriguing question. There is no doubt that if Norway and Sweden would join UK after Russia attacked Finland in 1939, then Germany would be free off steel and iron pretty fast, and it may even be a war ender. You cant build Tigers out of wood.

But I don’t think UK would succeed in invading Norway and Sweden, not in the time frame from the start of the Winter war in 1939 and to the German invasion in april 1940.

First, Uk would have to declare war against Norway, which at that time had the nr 4 largest merchant fleet in the world, and which UK depended on, unless they wanted to starve. So already here we meet a no-goer and the reason UK never did it in the real world. But for the sake of discussion, lets say Churchill didn’t mind and attacked anyway. To take Narvik would be easy, since it was not defended at that time. Germany only needed 1900 men to take Narvik in the real timeline. UK with French and Polish troops would probably muster between 18 000 and 50 000 men, and a navy 7 times bigger than the joint German, Russian, Norwegian, Finnish and Swedish navies. In the real timeline, the Allies did land 25 000 men in the Narvik area, but that was not enough to kick out the 1900 German soldiers. The terrain between Narvik and Kiruna is very difficult with high rocky mountains and winter all the time, and there was only one small railroad connecting the two towns, no roads. At its peak, Germany was only able to supply 5000 men at that area, and I cant imagine how UK should be able to supply a huge army of more than 20 000 men climbing over the mountain range and into Sweden. And when crossing into Sweden, they would probably face more than 320 000 Swedish troops, which is what Sweden actually did mobilize to protect the iron mines in the real timeline. To that you can add 120 000 German troops and Luftflotte 5, now allied to Sweden. Since Germany and Russia were allied at this time, it would not be unthinkable that the worlds largest submarine force, based at Murmansk, would sink a lot of the UK convoys that would try to supply the allied army up in the Narvik mountains. So bottom line, I don’t think UK would be strong enough to pull this off.

@CWO:

what would they have found there, standing between them and Germany?  The Alps.  So much for soft underbellies.

That aint true for the G40 map, there you can blitz an Army group from Italy to Denmark in one move, aint no mountains stopping you there, man  :-D

@Tall:

––I have some DEFINATE preferences,…IMHO:
*Only Air Transports can be used for (n/c)Air Transport or ©Paratroop Drops, no Bombers ever
*Air Transports must begin from an Air Base
*Only ONE Paratrooper per Air Transport
*Air Transports should be allowed to be purchased from the start of the game. IMHO when we require the purchase of Air Transports and use of Air Bases this should be enough of an “investment” requirement
*A maximum of FOUR (4) Paratroopers per nation except China
*Paratroopers can conquer a National Capital ONLY in conjunction with other forces jointly, not as a solo attack

I agree with almost everything but the purchasing limit. There are no limits on Battleships or tanks, so why limit the Paratrooper ? Should there be a limit on transport planes too ? You can buy 10 Transport planes, but only 4 Paratroopers ? No sir, if I run a nation, and I want to spend all my dollars on Transport planes and Paratroopers, who would stop me ? I don’t sit there as a cry baby if you spend all your dollars on Battleships.

I think this link give a good over view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Olympic

I figure MacArthur would teach the Japs a lesson

@Tall:

Especially the ‘cry-babies’ that decry the dropping of the atomic bombs as “unnecessary”.  Â

Dropping the Bomb was unnecessary to win against Japan, because they don’t make their own food, and the blockade made sure every Japs would starve to death sooner or later. It was a matter of time. In European medieval, when it was usual to siege a castle, they had a saying, thousand warriors with no food is thousand dead warriors. This would go for Japan in -45 too.

Truman dropped the Bomb for one reason, to send a message to Stalin

@Tall:

Guys,

––I think everyone here would do well by reading the book “Hell to Pay” in order to get the ACTUAL FACTS as they existed before throwing out their “guestimate”.Tall Paul
Â

This is a free country with free speech, so I guess my guestimate is as good as yours, Tally. As long as I don’t talk politics, which will get me banned, I am allowed to guess that USA would lose less than 200 000 men during an invasion of Japan main island. Period

OK, so lets agree on the strategy so far.

Another decisive issue, that AH was only partly responsible to, was the failure in production. Germany was out-produced by everybody.

Look at the labor and production charts in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

From -42 the Sovjet Union had a labor force of 8 000 000 men compared to a labor force of 16 000 000 in Germany.
But the Russian out-produced Germany.
Russia made 24 000 Tanks compared to 9000 German.
Russia made 25 000 Planes compared to 15 000 German.
And the numbers compared to USA is even more skewed.

The reason is that every German Tank was handmade, while the T-34 and Sherman,s were made on assembly line like the old T-Fords.
Yes, the German Tanks were superior in quality, but it was impossible to get spare parts when they broke down.
The Allies won the production war by quantity and efficiency.

On top of that, AH ordered stuff that was not necessary to win the war. The two big surface ships Bismarck and Tirpitz used as much steel as ten Panzer Divisions. When you play Germany in a game of A&A, what do you buy before you attack Russia ? 2 Battleships or 10 Mechanized infantry ? What do you imagine is the best purchase, and why should this be different from a real world scenario ?