Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Narvik
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 0
    • Topics 24
    • Posts 1,039
    • Best 260
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 2

    Posts made by Narvik

    • RE: US and the Undeclared European War

      @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.

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: France and Britain Invade Norway and Sweden 1939

      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.

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Does Normandy invasion on D-Day necessary to defeat Germany?

      @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

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Paratroopers for Global

      @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.

      posted in House Rules
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Allied Invasion of Japan

      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

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Allied Invasion of Japan

      @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

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Allied Invasion of Japan

      @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

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Could Germany have won WWII?

      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 ?

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Allied Invasion of Japan

      Lets look at the Russian attack at Manchuria 1945. Russia attacked with 1.600 000 men and took 9000 casualties. Japan defended with 1.200 000 men and took 90 000 casualties. How can anybody, with this numbers in mind, believe that fighting in Japan mainland will cost millions of American lives ? In Europe the American soldier was 1 to 1 with the German soldier, while the German soldier was superior on 1 to 7 against the Russian soldier. Also during the Korean war, the American soldier was superior to the Chinese and Russians. And we know the Russian soldier was superior to the Japanese.
      Look at the TDI reports at http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/

      The numbers talk

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Allied Invasion of Japan

      I figure the Allies would lose 200 000 men, and Japan lose 8 million.

      If we compare to the Korean war, the western allies USA, UK, Canada and ANZAC lost 180 000 men of a total force of 1.200 000 soldiers. The Commie allies North Korea, Sovjet Union and China lost 600 000 men of a total force of 1.200 000 soldiers, plus 3 million civilians. The Commies had short supply lines and were defending their homes, but the western weapons, training and tactic were superior.

      Japan was depending on ships for 90 % of their consume, and in 1945 they were strangled by the blockade, and USAF had bombed all industry. There were no way Japan could supply any fighting force with guns and ammo in 1945. Even if they had high morale and would fight to the dead, they would be using sticks and knives, against tanks, artillery and aircrafts. It would look like the Roarkes Drift were 5000 Zulu warriors was defeated by 137 Brits with rifles.

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Could Germany have won WWII?

      Yes, its easy to agree with Manstein and Rendulic. But AH,s grand mistake IMHO was too many fronts. If its true that Sovjet Union was the main threat to the security of Germany, then the Eastern Front would be decisive, and it would be rational to allocate all resources to that decisive front. But only 60 % of Germanys military force was used there, and this was unnecessary, because Germany had good flank protection both to north and south. It was no need to use half a million men in Norway and Finland, because Sweden was pro-Germany and would protect the iron ore mines against the Allies. And there were no need to use a million men in Balkans neither, because Greece would never allow UK to bomb the Ploesti oil fields from Greek territory, but AH did not trust the Swedes nor the Greeks. After the Vichy government was installed, it was no need to have a million men in France either. And to declare war against neutral USA and use so many resources in the Atlantic was plain stupid, and would only serve to strengthen an obvious defeat. On top of that, AH even made a domestic front, against the Jews.

      To wrap it up, Germanys best bet to win would be to ignore Norway, the Balkans, North Africa, the Atlantic and the Jews, and commit all 5 million men of the Army and Airforce, together with the one million allied soldiers, and go straight for Moscow. That would be a cut-throat victory, making everything else irrelevant. But then, AH would not be AH.

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: HBG - Axis & Allies Parts/Accessories and Custom Piece Sets Store!

      @Spirou:

      @coachofmany:

      UK Set, U.S. Set, Axis Minor Set, Facilities, French WW2, then French WW1

      I’m really looking forward to the facilities set, what you got online looks great!

      I second that, and this set should be next IMHO, I don’t need any more Japanese infantry, I need plastic factories

      posted in Marketplace
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Could Germany have won WWII?

      OK, but do you have a comment to my allworldwars link ?

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Europe 1939

      I post a terrain map of Europe, so you see the mountain ranges I am talking bout

      Europe_relief_laea_location_map1-1024x875.jpg

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Europe 1939

      I love it, much better than the OOB.

      I am your old buddy Eagle, so I would like to see territories that have high mountains and swamps cut in a way that they affect the play.

      France and Northern Italy should not be adjacent, even if it is for playability. If you look at a real map, you see the high impassable Alps stand as a stone wall and stop all movement. I like the A&A Europe 1999 ed map, where Vichy France, Switzerland, Austria and Jugoslavia would make natural flank protection to Northern Italy. The Brenner Pass is a bottleneck, you know.

      I would also like to see a territory between Southern France and mainland Spain, modeling the Pyrenees mountain range, Norway should be cut in two or three, Turkey too, and Caucasus should get cut in two, modeling the mountain range.

      I attached two pics, but must run, come back to you tomorrow

      Europe_relief_laea_location_map1-1024x875 (4).jpg

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Question about Tech.

      @wittmann:

      Captain Mitchell: can I ask which country’s flag you have used on your avatar?
      Mine is a German Panzer Ace.

      People,s Liberation Army Navy

      Its the flag used by the Chinese navy from 1950 to present

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Could Germany have won WWII?

      @KurtGodel7:

      Von Manstein was a brilliant man frustrated by the less-than-stellar decisions made by his intellectual inferiors (just about everyone else).

      I guess he talks about AH as the less intellectual ?

      Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic blame AH too, for his less-than-stellar decisions.

      see link

      http://www.allworldwars.com/A-reflection-on-the-Causes-of-the-German-Defeat-by-Rendulic.html

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Could Germany have won WWII?

      @KurtGodel7:

      To address some of the specific issues which had been raised: victory for Germany would have meant security against foreign invasion. This security could not have been achieved by simply waiting on events. To the east, the long-term goal of Soviet foreign policy was world conquest. The FDR administration was strongly pro-Soviet; as was the government of France. There were many influential people in Britain who wanted that nation to adopt a pro-Soviet foreign policy; and by 1939 they’d become much more effective in influencing British policy than they’d been in '38.

      In such an environment, it would have been highly risky for Germany to rely on the good intentions of its neighbors for its own security. The diplomatic situation was unstable; and all that was needed was some spark to give the pro-war/pro-Soviet faction in the West an excuse to intervene.

      If this is what AH wrote in Mein Kampf he could have fooled me. So you tell me it was necessary to kill and ethnical clean all German Jews to achieve domestic security, and to invade Russia, kill and ethnical clean 30 million Slaves and make Lebensraum to achieve security against communism, then kill and ethical clean all people in the rest of the world that was not Arian, just to achieve security to the German nation ? It sounds to me AH was building an empire, not securing a country, but as I said, he could have fooled me.

      Lets look at your other facts. It is true that Lenin wanted world domination, but you tell me Stalin wanted it too ? Stalin is not the man who said - Lets build socialism in Russia, and let the other people manage themselves, after the failure in the Spanish civil war ? And you tell me that the capitalist nations USA & UK did not help Germany build up its military forces as a buffer to the communist Sovjet Union ? The only time USA & UK did help Sovjet Union was after AH had start a world war and attacked both UK, Russia and USA, and forced them to be allies. You sir, read the wrong books.

      IMHO I figure the best way for Germany to achieve security would have been to build a strong defensive military force, that would deterrent any attack because of the high cost, and then make trade agreements with as many nations as possible, maybe even join alliances with democratic nations like UK and France, and most important of all, quit racist hate speeches against Jews and non-Arians. But as I said, my intellect is less compared to Manstein, so I may be wrong, man

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Could Germany have won WWII?

      I am not sure what I am reading here, Kurt, you say Hitler had no choice than to start a world war and kill 6 million Jews because that was the only way to make Germany a safe place ?

      posted in World War II History
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • RE: Simple Unit Charts

      I love it

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      NarvikN
      Narvik
    • 1
    • 2
    • 48
    • 49
    • 50
    • 51
    • 52
    • 51 / 52