Posts made by tloger

Krieg i have noticed in some forum games, that players sometimes place fighters in seazones when they do their purchase faze with an adjacent seazon to sit on a CV, and place fighters in their non com faze to wait arrival for a newly purchased CV during the placement stage.  I am unaware of this, are these legal moves?

LOL, thats right, I remember that.  What a way to sugar coat it

I recently just read a remark from Churchill to Montgomery pertaining to Monty’s abstinence of alchohal and smoking. "Monty boasted that abstinence made him 100 percent fit.  Churchill countered that he both smoked and drank making him 200 percent fit.(Atkinson)

Its even more humorous when I picture it in my head with Monty’s voice.

I graduated from the U of Iowa with a BA in History and a focus in military history, as well as a Political Science BA focused in Foreign Policy. As of now I am continuing my Grad in History.  The value and importance of our past is priceless.  Out of all of my experiences during my five years of college studies I have to say the humorous side of history always gives me a boost of joy and an insight of the time period that critical analysis of more serious and more prevalent topics in history cannot provide.  Anyways, I am starting a thread for people to share any funny side stories that they have come across in their studies of WW II history.  For me, the comical occurrences of WWII always gives me an escape from the actual tragedies that our brave soldiers endured during that time of peril.

I’ll start one off.  George Patton as everyone knows was one of, if not the most charismatic and most intriguing figures of the war.  When Patton finally made it to the Tunisian front during the African campaign, his stalwart and aggressive disciplinarian behavior butted heads with one of his new subordinate commanders, Terry Allen (To Terry’s credit he was a soldier’s commander and a great general, he received the French Croix de Guerre for his valor in the Tunisian campaign).  Patton disliked Terry’s ragtag demeanor and his sometimes dismissive approach to his own immediate defenses for his own command post.  Here is an excerpt from Rick Atkinson’s book An Army at Dawn: “Determined and energetic, he (Patton) could also be boorish and abusive, incapable of distinguishing between the demands of a disciplinarian and the caprices of a bully. ‘Terry, where is your foxhole?’  When Allen pointed to a slit trench outside his tent, Patton unzipped his fly and urinated in it, signaling his contempt for passive defenses. (Atkinson)”

The real prize was the fleet at Toulon under Admiral Jean de Laborde. Even with Darlan’s ceding of his fleet to the Allies, Toulon had 77 available french ships.  Darlan tried to barter with his old rival to throw his lot in with his, but laborde remained silent over the topic  In occupying Vichy France after the African landings, the Germans stopped short of Toulon  demanding the surrender of the fleet.  Soon the German’s grew tired of waiting for a reply and moved in to take the fleet by force.  Quoted as “one of the greatest acts of self immolation in military history”, Laborde scuttled his fleet and sabatoged it before it could get into German hands. In all 3 battleships, seven cruisers, and thirty-two destroyers were lost amongst the fleet.  Eisenhower had mixed feelings, he was dismayed that the fleet was gone, but relieved the prize was not in German hands.

Turtle, here is some historical information on the Japanese motive and view for aggression against the Soviet Union. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/nomonhan.aspx, also I subscribe to WORLD WAR II magazine, and in the May 2009 issue there is a good article about it. Enjoy

This is going to be a lengthy post so bare with me.  All the points listed before about Turkey are valid.  It would have been to the Germans advantage with Turkey to push another front with Russia, secure Middle East oil, and deprive Britain of that oil.  But why not have 2 for one.  Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall’s main concern at the beginning of Operation Torch was an Axis push through Spain.  After we secured Morocco, Algiers, and Oran we ran into a stalemate with the Germans at Medjez-el-Bab.  Due to inexperienced US forces and the loosely integrated formation of British and US units, the Germans under Colonel-General Hans-Jurgen von Arnim pushed the Allies almost out of Tunisia in their push to Tunis.  Why was this?  Along with the deficiencies listed above, Marshall urged Ike to leave some of his best commanders at the rear (like Generals Patton, Allen, and Roosevelt) in fear of an Axis strike from Spain.  Previous to this, it was US military consensus to enter the war with Operation Sledgehammer (which was later used for D-Day June 6 '44). Churchill greatly disapproved this, so the British urged an invasion of Northern Africa to set up an invasion of the soft under-belly of Europe.  US military doctrine at the time called for direct action at the enemies strongest point.  The British still reelling from European theater failure highly disapproved of such a maneuver.  So Operation Torch was was approved at the stalwart  pleas of the British.  The initial invasion was plagued with many debacles and failures.  Operations RESERVIST and TERMINAL were absolute disasters during the landings of Oran and Algiers.  Inexperieced coxswains and boat commanders lost many men just trying to get to shore during the landings at Fedalla in Morocco.  Patton’s own boat capsized  just prior to landing on the beach due to operational inadequacies (US naval personnel were unprepared to deal with adverse Atlantic waters.) Many ships and transports were lost at the hands of mediocre French Naval arms. The Jean-Bart, a French battlecruiser, sunk a few ships even though it was operationally beached at port in Morocco by simply pointing its guns from shore to the enemy. The Allies were only able to take  and secure the landings due to insufficient French military strength, most of which were French Senegalese troops.  Even at that the French resistance was still able to tally a fair amount of Allied casualties.  In regards to that, had the Germans been able to acquire Axis military control in Spain, they most certainly would have taken Gibralter and closed the Med. The Allies would at that point still face two choices:  Operation TORCH or SLEDGEHAMMER. Had the Allies still went ahead with TORCH with German control of the Strait of Gibralter, our inexperienced Navy would have meet strong German naval resistance and German air supremacy in the landings, and would have most likely been greatly demoralized.  A serious setback would have greatly delayed an Allied rebottle.  This in effect would have given Axis military in Africa and Rommel a lot of breathing room to destroy the 8th army in Egypt and push to the Middle East with out even having to negotiate an alliance with Turkey. If the Allies chose option b (SLEDGEHAMMER) and accepted Axis control of the Med in this situation, our inexperienced forces coupled with untested battle cooperation with the British would have been thrown into the teeth of fortress Europe and you would have seen a D-Day invasion of France in late '42 early '43. The results of which I cannot bear to imagine.  In a historical sense, operation TORCH as it really played out in history, gave our soldiers and forces much needed battle prepping for the eventual dangers to come in the landings of Sicily, Italy, ad France.  Had the Axis had control of the Med and Gibralter history may have been gravely altered.  A simple alliance with Turkey would have still open the door for the Allies in Northern Africa.

Thank you kreig

Disregard my question I see this same situation was already answered earlier in this forum.

Krieg, the situation that I am in right now goes as follows:  The Italian player wants to attack a lone tranny in seazone 12, while at the same time attack with an amphibious assault in Gibralter against 2 planes and a bomber.  Im not sure he can divide his forces in the same zone; the player wanted to use one cruiser to attack the lone tranny, and then use the BB and 2nd cruiser with  Ita tranny to do an amphibious on Gibralter.  Would he have to commit his fleet to the tranny, thus taking away his bombardment option in that seazone.

Right on! Im actually from Northwest Iowa like some of the other folks on this thread. From a little town called Primghar.  Straight west of Spencer about 20 minutes.  Hawkeyes rule, back to back wrestling national champs!

Double major graduate from the University of Iowa in Political Science and History.  I completed both the USAF Past test for Combat Control and the Navy SEALS screen test.  I decided on combat control and was about to leave when the recruiter finally came clean with me and told me I could not become an officer within combat control, but would have to cross train and learn another job, take OCS in the other field and cross train back to CCT. I had asked him about that many times, but he lied and bent the truth.  He originally told me I would have to enlist, and then when my 2 years of training was done I could go and do OCS for CCT.  Coupled with buying an engagement ring, I decided to stay and get a nine to five.  I work as a Club Manager and the Building Facilities Quality Control manager at a fitness and social club called The East Bank Club in Chicago.  Not sure if I will try and go back and give Special Ops a shot, but you never know.

I haven’t gotten to “Day of Battle” yet, I am just finishing up “An Army at Dawn.”  With the template he uses, he gathers a lot of personal journal entries and witness accounts. So I think it would be fair to say that there will be a high probability that he will shed some light on Italian battle plans he may have had.  I know he goes in depth about Operation Husky which would be a given. Even if there is not that much substantial info about that specific topic, I would still suggest buying and reading the books.  Its probably one of the best historical war narratives I have ever read.

Rick Atkinson, a pulitzer prize winning author, has come out with a Liberation Trilogy for the European theater.  The first book, “Army at Dawn” covers the African campaign; the second, “The Day of Battle” covers the Italian and Sicilian campaigns.  The third book is not out yet nor does it have a title, but I am sure Rick will cover Patton’s proposed Normandy landings and other French invasion plans he had at the time. The third of course covers D-Day to the fall of Berlin.  These books are great reads.  He covers many personal accounts from most of the key generals and leaders in the campaigns, as well as mapping out and explaining most of the key battles that took place throughout the Euro theater.

Isn’t History fun!  Your points are without a doubt valid.  The embargo pretty much diminished Japan’s Imperialistic goals forcing them to run the gambit in military action against the United States.  I think what needs to be taken from the Nomonhan Incident is what it shaped for the future.  Win or lose Japan probably would not invade like you said, because their interest was oil.  Nomonhan was, after all, only a border dispute that started out as skirmishes with Mongolian mounted cavalry. But it grew to an escalated engagement with many History shaping individuals like Zhukov and Masanobu Tsuji (Who was the architect of the engagement, and would later lead  campaigns in Malay-Singapore, lead the Bataan Death marches in the Philippines, but would later lose horribly in Guadalcanal).  I think the focus is on the battle itself and the future reprocussions it would have.  Thats why in my original post I posted a “no” answer because before '41 that decision was already decided.  As far as the Imperial Army’s preference in taking the Soviet Far East after Hitler’s plea is unclear to me as well.  I know it is in fact true, but I am going to have to go back and do some more researching and I will be sure to get back to you when I have the facts.  What my inclination is that some of Japan’s high commanders were concerned that if Hitler did take Russia without Japan, he would no longer need Japan and would no longer provide Political or Militaristic support in nature, leaving Japan by itself in its Imperial interests and goals.  I think the idea of helping Hitler and reaping some of the spoils, they felt he would still be their aid and ally in the end (Which probably would not be the case, I would assume Hitler would drop Japan as an ally either way after he completed Lebensraum.)  But like i said i will get back to the forum with facts behind the Imperial Army’s motives and why they actually supported such an idea.

However i am not sure I quite agree with you.  Had the Japanese defeated Stalin’s Far East divisions at Nomonhan, Zhukov would not have won Stalin’s confidennce, probably would not have been given overall command in late 41 let alone any, changing the leadership in the Russian and German front.  A Japanese victory at Nomonhan along with possible German success in the Barbarossa campaign possibly would have been enough for Japan to engage Russia after pleas from Hitler to Japan’s war ministry to enter the war.  Gen Eugene Ott, the German ambassador in Japan did urge the Japanese to enter the war against Russia on the behalf of Hitler '41. He pleaded, “Avenge the defeat at Nomonhan and seize the Soviet Far East, but do it now.  If you wait till I defeat Stalin I won’t need you anymore.”  Top Japanese Army leaders believe it or not did favor that route, but Naval commanders voted against it, due to the embarrassment and the possibility of aquireing defenseless French and Dutch colonies in the Pacific.  As soon as the decision was made to strike the US, the top soviet spy in tokyo cabled Moscow that the Japanese were moving into the southern Pacific.  At this moment Stalin was able to move Fifteen Divisions, three cavalry divisions, 1,700 tanks, and 1,500 aircraft to the European theater.  It was these powerful reinforcements and Zhukov that turned the tide against Germany.  So I wouldn’t go so far as to say if the Japs did win the “proxy” war, Japan would not have helped a “Threatening Hitler” if he was about to take Moscow.

Ithkral is right on every point.  Japan did try to advance in to the Soviet Union in 1939 in a border dispute in Mongolia.  The Kwangtung army was massecred, by, you name it, Georgi Zhukov.  Stalin sent him there to dispel the Japanese past the Khalka River.  The defeat was such a set back it completely altered Japanese motive to even engage the Russians again.  The result of this battle turned japanese war planning toward the US and the eventual attack on Pearl Harbor.

Me too, I have used paper and pencil since classic. My AA 50 $ is still in the plastic.  Only when playing with large groups of people or newbies will I use the cash.

i didn’t even manage to take the territory. I retreated after that, needless to say that changed the game, allies stormed into Germany after that debacle.