View Full Version : EA-ICS-AX2: Europe Aflame Interactive Combat Story: Axis Episode II
Siberian HEAT
14 Dec 04, 13:35
Sorry for the delay in getting chapter 2 ready, but we are still working out the bugs in how we do this. I believe the next chapters should flow much faster now.
In episode II we see Germany poised to tackle the French and British as they try to capture Paris and knock the French out of the war. It is up to you to decide which direction Germany should invade. Conversely, the Allies will be trying to decide on the best course of action to stop the German invasion.
Read Episode II here (http://armchairgeneral.com/page_left_column.php?content=article_disp&p=2052&page=1).
Read Episode I here (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/page_left_column.php?content=article_disp&p=1810&page=1).
chrisvalla
14 Dec 04, 15:06
Hmmm... I had a friend that had to deal with the Italy question in a game of Strategic Command... he activated them and I had a French armored corp (with infantry covering any advances from Rome) rolling into Munich before the Germans got through Belgium. I believe in that 'world', Jane's cited the end of WWII occurring sometime in May 1940 with the arrest of Hitler and the removal of his 'finatical' war-inclined generals. He really is a good player, it's just that some choices are... pre-programmed and can be countered... and I was NOT playing a historical French army.
Given that however... going through the Maginot takes time... something we don't have. While sneaky, transferring forces to the south again takes time, and will not go unnoticed (though I doubt the spineless Allies would do anything aggressive - on land anyway - to take advantage of the repositioning). Belgium and the Netherlands cannot be allowed to remain 'neutral' and interfere with our supply lines, nor can they be allowed to ask for British 'assistance' while we concentrate on France.
As for where to concentrate the attack, that depends partially how strong and where any BEF is located. Should they defend the 'neutrality' of thee low countries, I would suggest cutting them off from their French allies by going through the Ardennes and splitting the Allies in two (somewhat historical). On the other hand, should the BEF attempt to form a line from the Maginot the sea, I would forward that we hook into the low countries and run down the coast with the utmost speed and cut off their ports of supply. While this would certainly curl their forces back towards the Maginot and allow them somewhat intact interior lines, I believe using the Channel to cover one flank (and bottling up any defenders inside their ports) will allow us the strength to punch through to Paris leaving the Maginot to be cut off and wither on it's own.
It goes without saying that our Italian friends MUST keep any French forces in the south at least on the defensive. They cannot be allowed to travel north to reinforce the Parisan defenders. They also must take the fight to the Royal Navy in the central Med. They cannot sit bottled up in port waiting for something to do (or someone to attack them). If Il Duce really wants his Roman Empire, let him earn it by clearing the Med out between Gibralter and Alexandria/Athens... and then we'll deal with them as soon as France is groveling for peace. His first priority must be to force the British to go around the Cape and closing the Suez as a transportation route. I'm sure der Fuhrer would like to see the pyramids and the Parthenon sometime himself, but that will come later (surely with our help since taking Egypt and Greece is well beyond the neo-Romans).
Perhaps we can elicit some help from our friend Franco... after all, he owes us something now doesn't he? Perhaps the Turks have an axe to grind with the Colonial Powers and could help out... indirectly of course.
BarcelonaBlom
14 Dec 04, 15:16
I say we do the historical and take Belgium and the Netherlands and Ally with Italy. Though a larger attack through the Ardennes couldn't go amiss.
Doctor Sinister
14 Dec 04, 15:21
I say we do the historical and take Belgium and the Netherlands and Ally with Italy. Though a larger attack through the Ardennes couldn't go amiss.
I agree - we need Italy to maintain control over the Mediterranean - just think of it as one massive aircraft carrier.
Dr. S.
BarcelonaBlom
14 Dec 04, 15:32
Besides if we don't it just more territory in the way. And we need to make sure that we take the Med. correctly so if we decide to send Rommel and the 15th Light (is that right?) down there we can support him correctly and possibly keep that pugnacious Monty from taking command in Africa.
TacCovert4
14 Dec 04, 17:21
In every plan that we have devised (see ep. 1) Italy plays an integral part. Either she is a base of operations for securing the Med. or a supply depot for our troops headed to the middle east, or just another roadblock in the southern approach that the allies will want to take. And, let's follow the historical solution to France, it worked beautifully, and will give the writers an easier time working on the resolution.
TacCovert4
14 Dec 04, 17:28
As for uses for Italy, I recommend using his sub fleet to interdict shipping in the Med. We should keep his forces in Cont. Europe until Paris falls just in case. Once Paris Falls however, Gibraltar and Malta should be invaded, and I think the Italians should do it. With Gibraltar under Axis control, and a sub fleet on the loose in the Med. The vaunted Royal Navy will be caught with only one route of seaborne supply or retreat, and we can harry them until all ships are either surrendered, retreated, or destroyed.
Well, despite the fact that everyone on this thread agrees with the Ardennes approach, it's behind 15 to 18.
Any other opinions?
BarcelonaBlom
17 Dec 04, 07:28
Well, despite the fact that everyone on this thread agrees with the Ardennes approach, it's behind 15 to 18.
Any other opinions?
I was under the impression that everyone thought the Low Countries was correct but I thought Rommel was part of the thrust through the Ardennes... I think we should compromise and possibly put a Division or two extra in the Ardennes thrust but still invade the Low Countries so we can prepare for the War on Britain if it is decided and they will give us a place for industry, emergency airstrips, airfields, and possibly some ports, lookout stations, etc.
Historically the first plan to attack france was a modern variant of the Von Schlieffen plan. One front would hold still more or less(the one facing the maginot line) and one wing would swing in along the coast.
However several incidents caused a change of plan:
fore most was the capture by the belgians of two german officers who had a copy of the above plan.
The plan kept on changing with the center getting more and more armoured divions at the cost of the north wing. The new plan called for a trust through the ardennes into the sedan area.
The idea was to split the allies in two.
Suprise, agression, speed, bluf and sheer luck pulled the thing off.
The german high command(including hitler) almost lost their nerve as the german armoured units thundered into france and the infantry divisions couln't keep up, causing a gap to appear.
The only thing needed was for the allies to gather a strong armoured collumn, arrange air cover, and jump into the gap. In fact, the french did sent armour , but it was committed piece-meal and lacked the air cover it needed.
It's interesting to know that contrary to the general idea the allies matched the germans in armoured strenght and they had in fact an advantage in tank quality.
Also the allies were on equal footing in aircraft.
The interesting moment is the period after the fall of france.
Germany targeted the Uk in the battle of britain and the battle of the atlantic. But minds were more busy with the preparation of the invasion of the Sovjet Union.
Then developments in the med. started to overtake the germans.
The italians declared war on the greeks and tried to take egypt. Both actions failed and germany had to step in to safe it's hapzard ally. An intervention which might have lost them the war, according to some.
So wat strategy next?
Should it invade the UK?
But germany has not the resources to invade England(or has it?).
On the other hand, Englands strenght lies in it's empire and it's will to resist.
It might well be that it's will to resist can be broken by depriving it of it's empire?
Would Churchill not fall if he lost the suez, malta and gibraltar?
And then more amendable people might come to power.
Germany also should watch that big power overseas: are the americans going to stand by idle when the UK is brought down?
But if the UK was forced to make peace, why then should the US intervene?
Another dillema is how much time must the USSR be given:
it was recovering from the big officer purge and the war with finland.
One should remember that the t-34 was introduced around this time and with it's introduction made all german tanks obsolete. What if the USSR is given more time to reorganise it's army and introduce the t-34 in large numbers?
Can germany afford to wait?
BarcelonaBlom
17 Dec 04, 13:17
The interesting moment is the period after the fall of france.
Germany targeted the Uk in the battle of britain and the battle of the atlantic. But minds were more busy with the preparation of the invasion of the Sovjet Union.
Then developments in the med. started to overtake the germans.
The italians declared war on the greeks and tried to take egypt. Both actions failed and germany had to step in to safe it's hapzard ally. An intervention which might have lost them the war, according to some.
So wat strategy next? Seeing how we are making the decisions by a majority vote its whatever the majority rules...
Should it invade the UK? Wouldn't be bad but can it be done. I think that the Air War can be won if we don't switch to Goering's "Terror Campaign" in fact... we should fire Goering.
But germany has not the resources to invade England(or has it?).
On the other hand, Englands strenght lies in it's empire and it's will to resist.
It might well be that it's will to resist can be broken by depriving it of it's empire?
Would Churchill not fall if he lost the suez, malta and gibraltar? Probably not but those are very strategic areas for Germany. I think we need to work to destroy the Allies's Sea Power in the Med. So our forces in North Africa (if we deploy there) won't have their supplies and replacements choked.
And then more amendable people might come to power.
Germany also should watch that big power overseas: are the americans going to stand by idle when the UK is brought down?
But if the UK was forced to make peace, why then should the US intervene?
Another dillema is how much time must the USSR be given:
it was recovering from the big officer purge and the war with finland.
One should remember that the t-34 was introduced around this time and with it's introduction made all german tanks obsolete. What if the USSR is given more time to reorganise it's army and introduce the t-34 in large numbers?
Can germany afford to wait?Another question is should we pursue a war with Russia at all? I think if things go for the best we could manage it but it is something we shouldn't do until we are completely sure that the West is either eliminated or stands down.
My comments in bold.
chrisvalla
17 Dec 04, 13:19
Let's force the British to a peace (forget invading, just make them lose everywhere else and all but openly state we're not interested in Buckingham Palace), clean out the Med and the Balkans in 1941 and set up a good logistics system from the middle east. I'd like to wait until we have some atomic bombs to give as presents to Stalin, but I don't believe we have that long. When Japan does her thing... let her go and keep the Americans busy... we have no beef with them (except that damn lend-lease crap they keep sending!... oh yes, that Triparte pact... hmmm... any way legally out of that?) We musn't set off the Americans before we've nuetered Stalin and secured the continent... spring '42 looks good for a trip to Moscow. Perhaps Spain, Portugal, and Turkey would be willing to help as well?
BarcelonaBlom
17 Dec 04, 13:23
Let's force the British to a peace (forget invading, just make them lose everywhere else and all but openly state we're not interested in Buckingham Palace), clean out the Med and the Balkans in 1941 and set up a good logistics system from the middle east. I'd like to wait until we have some atomic bombs to give as presents to Stalin, but I don't believe we have that long. When Japan does her thing... let her go and keep the Americans busy... we have no beef with them (except that damn lend-lease crap they keep sending!... oh yes, that Triparte pact... hmmm... any way legally out of that?) We musn't set off the Americans before we've nuetered Stalin and secured the continent... spring '42 looks good for a trip to Moscow. Perhaps Spain, Portugal, and Turkey would be willing to help as well?
Sounds good BUT Spring '42 would be horrible for an invasion... The Winter of '41 was recorded as one of the worst winters in Russia. The Spring of '42 and Fall of '41 were the worst muddy seasons Russia has ever had... Thanks to "Fighting in Hell: The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front" I know why they were wary of Springtime invasions...
BarcelonaBlom
17 Dec 04, 13:24
We could go for a hopefully earlier start on Barborossa instead of delaying it those crucial few months... get entrenched for the winter and give out the winter gear. In fact concentrate winter warfare tactics and mirror those of the Finnish... If they can beat a numerically superior and sometimes better force with their tactics they are quite sound. The sissi units and the motti envelop and destroy tactics work great in the winter.
chrisvalla
17 Dec 04, 13:41
Sounds good BUT Spring '42 would be horrible for an invasion... The Winter of '41 was recorded as one of the worst winters in Russia. The Spring of '42 and Fall of '41 were the worst muddy seasons Russia has ever had... Thanks to "Fighting in Hell: The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front" I know why they were wary of Springtime invasions...
OK, OK, so history would show it was bad timing... it looked good on paper. :D
BarcelonaBlom
17 Dec 04, 13:48
OK, OK, so history would show it was bad timing... it looked good on paper. :D
It does it really does... but I just learned that factoid after finishing a long good book.
YES! fire goering and replace him with sperrle, kesselring or (my favourite), adolf galand(maybe galand is to young?)
Clear out the med in 1940/1941 the invade russia.
Why take on the russians?
To show that it can be done of course!
Thr Russians show every indication that they will declare war on Germany if they are given enough time to prepare. There must be a plan in place to deal with them. I believe we can indeed go a little early, or go a little later, but time does not favor us. We must have a plan, and be ready and willing to act upon it!
how can keep musilleni(?) from wandering off on his own little jaunts and getting us tied down elsewhere the italian army isnt up to a full scale modern war.whats it going to cost us to have him,early bararossa would be nice if we didnt get side tacked of into yugoslavia again no side trips leningrad would have fallen if ag north hadnt been sidetracked to moscow,stalingrad was ready to go but then they started off to the cacusas(?)by the time we got back to it it was a fortress,again be nice to the peasants they will welcome us as liberators against the ciminal comunist regime form the the russian volunteer army in maybe 42 and give them a reason to fight NO einsatz gruppen they dont like the reds any more than we do.knock out gibralter and malta so Rommel can get what he needs,starve out the english with u boats and i agree none of the stupid terror bombings concentrate on the airfields,radar installations,ports and factories.
BarcelonaBlom
23 Dec 04, 07:55
how can keep musilleni(?) from wandering off on his own little jaunts and getting us tied down elsewhere the italian army isnt up to a full scale modern war.whats it going to cost us to have him,early bararossa would be nice if we didnt get side tacked of into yugoslavia again no side trips leningrad would have fallen if ag north hadnt been sidetracked to moscow,stalingrad was ready to go but then they started off to the cacusas(?)by the time we got back to it it was a fortress,again be nice to the peasants they will welcome us as liberators against the ciminal comunist regime form the the russian volunteer army in maybe 42 and give them a reason to fight NO einsatz gruppen they dont like the reds any more than we do.knock out gibralter and malta so Rommel can get what he needs,starve out the english with u boats and i agree none of the stupid terror bombings concentrate on the airfields,radar installations,ports and factories.
Welcome to the boards hip! Also an excellent strategem... Well the tide goes with the majority so we'll see how it turns out.
Well, I've been watching this forum for a long time but never said anything. I've always voted on the Axis poll and haven't even read the Allied options or forum. My take on it is that we don't need Italy. Italy's armed forces are woefully unprepared and Mussolini is bound to go get himself into trouble and need our help to bail him out. I would prefer to keep Italy out of this for now. As for France, I am a supporter of going through the Low Countries, not the Ardennes. Currently, it is neck and neck with the two options. I feel that the Ardennes route is too risky, and that it could end in spectacular disaster. However, the Low Countries are weak and ready for invasion. Furthermore, since the Ardenees route is the historical option....wouldn't the Allies being expecting us to do that and therefore move more forces into that area.....I strongly support the Low Countries option.
If I might offer a radical suggestion, why not ally ourselves with Russia? Suppose we take France, as I am confident we will do, regardless of route or method?
What then? We have a choice of invading England or invading Russia. I should think England to be the correct choice here. This is an island nation that is the head of an Empire; by striking at the head we have a greater chance of inflicting a mortal blow.
Whereas if we invade Russia, we would of necessity have to deliver body blows to an opponent that has proved itself time and again to be more than capable of absorbing such blows, simply by trading space for time. In addition, they have three Generals we have as yet not encountered, Frost, Winter and Rasputza (Bad Roads).
As to the last-mentioned, please remember that a goodly amount of our military success to date has depended on three things, namely, good roads, adequate maps, and railway systems we have been able to use right away. In Russia we shall have none of these things and quite frankly I do not believe our logistics system will be able to cope.
Therefore I propose we take France, invade England, and thereafter make a deal with Russia. Consider this: say Rommel takes Egypt and links up with allied German and Russian forces in the Caucasus. Then the Middle East and its oilfields belong to us. That is but an example of what such an allegiance could achieve.
I know what I have said flies in the face of certain pet theories held by our erm, leadership; however we really should face facts and let theories fall where they may. The facts to my mind are these, and these are they: With Russia we can either fight, or well, while it's a commonplace that there is no honour among thieves, surely co-operation among thieves has been known to happen, especially when, as here, it is to their mutual benefit.
Casey
Doctor Sinister
23 Dec 04, 21:21
Ally with RUSSIA?
Wow - now THAT'S thinking outside the box! :D
I rather think the Fuhrer was quite keen on the "Lebensraum" though. If you read his book, it's full of irrational burblings...ahem :nervous: ...sorry...rational well-thought-out arguments about Russia and how we can use the space.
Excuse me, I have to go, I'm being summoned by some nasty looking men in raincoats and floppy hats...
Dr. S.
With respect, surely the Fuhrer is aware of a German aphorism that runs, "When two quarrel, a third always laughs!" The third who would laugh in this case would of course be Britain. Once we are committed to attacking Russia, we shall have scant resources left to deploy elsewhere.
We can be certain of this as well; we shall be in a fight to the death. Why? Because of another saying that has it, "No one is more critical of you than a close relation". Whether we like it or not, it would be hard to imagine two closer relations than the regimes of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Another thing to consider: What has been the key to success with our Blitz tactics? Simply this, so far we have been able to advance on narrow fronts, concentrate our forces against a weak point, break through, reorganize, consolidate our gains and move on. In Russia, the further we advance, the wider the front will get. In short, we will have to resort to broad-front tactics for which we have neither the man-power or the resources.
All in all, if we attack Russia before we eliminate Britain, we shall have handed her the greatest breathing space we could, and well may Churchill say, "If Hitler had invaded Hell I should at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in The House of Commons!"
You mentioned "Lebensraum", I see. I do not know if the Fuhrer has ever read my favourite recipe for jugged hare; if not I shall be glad to lend him a copy. It originates in Medieval France and its first line states, "First catch the hare!"
Is it my imagination, or was that a thunderous knocking I just heard at my door?
Casey
BarcelonaBlom
24 Dec 04, 09:28
Totally agree with you Casey... Its just what do we have that can benefit both parties? Naturally its for our own gain but the Russians will want something to "spice up the deal."
Doctor Sinister
24 Dec 04, 10:16
Is it my imagination, or was that a thunderous knocking I just heard at my door?
Hears sound of marching boots, something being dragged along the floor. Cell doors clank and a body is thrown into the room next door. Iron bars slam shut.
Doctor Sinister raises his battered head.
"Casey, is that you in there?"
Dr. S.
Much of our Med strategy is based on capturing Gibraltar. However what if Spain refuses to let us through? Are we prepared to force our way through Spain to get there? Or are we going to rely on a weak and questionable Italian fleet to take on the British?
Now as for France, I believe that we should demand the return of the French fleet to Metropolitan France before we even begin armistice talks. After all our high seas fleet was held by Britain during the talks ending the Great War.
Turkey, they may show a reluctance to join us. Thinking that they have more to loose then they have to gain. I propose that we offer them their Empire back. We will return to them those areas taken by the British, and French after the Great War. I’m thinking that Syria, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Arabia can be given to them outright. While they can have an influences in Egypt.
When Japan does her thing... let her go and keep the Americans busy... we have no beef with them (except that damn lend-lease crap they keep sending!... oh yes, that Triparte pact... hmmm... any way legally out of that?)
The Tripartite pact only applies if they are attacked. If Japan attacks we are under no obligation to help them.
Totally agree with you Casey... Its just what do we have that can benefit both parties? Naturally its for our own gain but the Russians will want something to "spice up the deal."(BarcelonaBlom)
I believe the answer lies in technology. Firstly though, here's a silly question: Who taught the Russians much of what they know about cold-weather fighting? The answer is not, as some might suppose, their own Siberiak peoples. The truth is, we taught them!
Yes, we the Germans. After the Great War, both we and the Soviets were outcasts to the rest of Europe. And we both still are, but more on that later. In return for a base at Lipetsk where the then Weimar Republic trained what was to become our Luftwaffe, the Germans showed the Russians how to cope with extremes of cold, but that's ancient history now, of course.
I cannot see Stalin wanting to invade Germany just yet. On its last outing against the Finns, the Red Army put up a dismal performance; in the end only sheer weight of numbers prevailed. In his heart of hearts, taking into account the Tuchahevsky Purges, Stalin knows damn well his Army couldn't organize the tops off bottles. (I could use stronger language, but that will suffice).
So, we cooperate. Germany supplies desperately needed industrial and military technology, for which the Soviets pay in grain, oil, and minerals. We are already receiving large amounts of materiel from the Soviets and in this way, we could secure even more.
As boot for the deal, we have the Japanese. What could their Army and Navy do if they had access to the ports of Vladivostok, Murmansk, and Archangel? One little hop skip and jump across the Bering Straits and all of us together might take Alaska, with all its natural resources. I need hardly remind anyone this was once Russian territory.
At the moment, Stalin is playing a waiting game. He has been following our progress with great interest, and is just waiting to throw his cap in the ring. If, or should I say when, we take Britain, what happens after that? One thing is certain, Stalin didn't get to his present position by backing dead horses. With England out of the way, we will be the stone favourite in this race, and there is no prize for guessing where Stalin's money will go.
Casey
(Aside to Dr Sinister)
Hears sound of marching boots, something being dragged along the floor. Cell doors clank and a body is thrown into the room next door. Iron bars slam shut.
Doctor Sinister raises his battered head.
"Casey, is that you in there?"
Dr. S.(Dr Sinister) Rather fortunate, isn't it, that we both live in a time and age where such things are not an everyday occurence? :D
Hello chaps,
some thoughs about:
the italian alliance and med strategy.
1 The italian navy is a very modern navy. Although not on par with the english fleet it is something they have to think about. Especially if we demand the french fleet( or at least a substantial part of it) to be handed over.
2 The italians are going to blunder into something one way or another. The simple truth is that Mussolini will want to profit from the power vacum once france is done for and england distracted by the germans. So either leave them to their own devices or make sure that the germans determine what is going to be attacked. Otherwise the germans will end up having to bail out italy from some remote spot at an uncomfortable time.
3 If the germans want to execute a med campaign we need some place to do it from. Italy is well placed. A jump off position to Malta and Libia.
4 Granted, the italian army is not much to write home about: but then the germans are going to provide the troops and airforce. The italians can be left to occupy area's once they have been conquered by the germans. (imagine if rommel had only a fraction of the force the germans used to invade russia. He would have been in egypt no-time.)
Note that all the area's the german conquer need to be occupied.
If we can use italian troops in that role, we can free up some german units and this will actually add to our strenght.
5 The point is when Italy will enter the war: they should do so direct after the fall of france when the german airforces and troops are ready to strike malta and egypt.
6 Gibraltar isn't an important object once the suez and malta have been captured. However it is something to strive for.
Then what next? :nuts:
Both the german regime and russia regime consist of goons. In fact a russian historian claims that the near-defeat of the russian army in 1941 was due to the fact that it was preparing to attack germany(and thus ill disposed to defend) In other words the german struck just before their supposed russian allies were about to turn on them. :love:
I would agree that it wouldn't be wise to add to you enemies. But how is Germany going to ko england?
You can destroy it's airforce, but you need to invade it to finish it off. With what are you going to invade?
:hush:
My option for 1940. When hitler comes to celebrate the defeat of France. Mine the train at compiegne with a lot of tnt and blow him to kingdom come.:smoke:
BarcelonaBlom
26 Dec 04, 08:18
(BarcelonaBlom)
I believe the answer lies in technology. Firstly though, here's a silly question: Who taught the Russians much of what they know about cold-weather fighting? The answer is not, as some might suppose, their own Siberiak peoples. The truth is, we taught them!
.
<snipped for space>
:D
BRILLIANT!
Then what next? :nuts:
Both the german regime and russia regime consist of goons. In fact a russian historian claims that the near-defeat of the russian army in 1941 was due to the fact that it was preparing to attack germany(and thus ill disposed to defend) In other words the german struck just before their supposed russian allies were about to turn on them. :love:
Himmel Arsch und Zwirn! (To use part of my very limited stock of German cuss words). Anyway, to quote one of the main actors in a celebrated British sex scandal of the early Sixties, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"
To nail this lie, we have but to consider this: Many Russian units encountered by the Germans in the initial phase of Operation Barbarossa had but one rifle between two men, and those men who were armed had but five or fewer rounds in their pouches.
I respectfully submit, no Army would dare to attack in that condition. The only conclusion one could draw is that the Red Army was positioned primarily for garrison duty, and its units were ill-equipped even for that. (Please note, the above was in no way intended as a flame, merely as a reply to an historical conjecture)
[quote]I would agree that it wouldn't be wise to add to you enemies. But how is Germany going to ko england?
You can destroy it's airforce, but you need to invade it to finish it off. With what are you going to invade?(Owen36)
Firstly, the BEF must be destroyed in France. There must not be another, ahem, Dunkirk. All that will then be left in England will be the Home Guard and the RAF. Since 1920, the British have had strict gun laws in place. I dare say it would be easier for a German civilian to obtain a rifle or sidearm than it would be for his British counterpart.
The effect of these laws and the misguided policy of disarmament the British have followed all through the Twenties and Thirties has been that there is no solid British Armaments industry; that is the primary reason we hear Roosevelt making noises about "Lending a firehose to his neighbour".
However no amount of firehose will put out a fire without firefighters to man it; if the BEF is destroyed in detail in France there will, so to speak, be no firefighters.
There is still the Royal Navy, but if we make an all-out effort against it and the British Merchant Navy in the Channel, the RAF must perforce defend Britain's shipping lest Britain starve. If we use this tactic, our Luftwaffe's bombers and fighters will be operating within range of French bases, rather than over England itself where fuel constraints will limit the fighters' time aloft. In this way, we could expect to destroy both the Royal Navy and the bulk if not all of the RAF.
Let us not forget we have the Italian Navy and, after the fall of France, we may have the French Navy as well. In addition to the sea-lift these units can provide, it may well be that we shall have constructed some landing craft of our own by that time; at least one would surely hope so.
Just some thoughts to be going on with.
Casey
PS My option for 1940. When hitler comes to celebrate the defeat of France. Mine the train at compiegne with a lot of tnt and blow him to kingdom come.(Owen36)
Not at all a bad idea! Is there anyone willing to put the bell on that particular cat?
Okay let's assume the BEF can be destroyed(we have a dunkirk with a slightly different ending :devil: ) it might be a consideration to immediate invade the UK, before the english can recover from the shock and maybe even before france is defeated?
The germans used a airborne division in Holland and I think they also had an mountain division which doubled as airlanding force.
What if instead they are used to capture english key points.
The issue is to find the ships to reinforce quickly reinforce them.
On the other hand when the BEF is no more a invasion later on when the combined Italian/french fleet can be used is a more safer way(but then leave the english the time to dig in).
Is there anyone who ever tried to invade england in a wwII simulation/game?
Doctor Sinister
27 Dec 04, 12:05
Okay let's assume the BEF can be destroyed(we have a dunkirk with a slightly different ending :devil: ) it might be a consideration to immediate invade the UK, before the english can recover from the shock and maybe even before france is defeated?
The germans used a airborne division in Holland and I think they also had an mountain division which doubled as airlanding force.
What if instead they are used to capture english key points.
The issue is to find the ships to reinforce quickly reinforce them.
On the other hand when the BEF is no more a invasion later on when the combined Italian/french fleet can be used is a more safer way(but then leave the english the time to dig in).
Is there anyone who ever tried to invade england in a wwII simulation/game?
I know of two massive, in-depth attempts by modern day Historians and Military professionals to "wargame" Operation Sealion,and both resulted in failure.
The Germans were able to secure beachheads and land troops, but then the Royal Navy arrived to shut the door behind them, isolating them from reinforcement or resupply and the German troops withered on the vine.
Dr. S.
There is the key. If the RN can be destroyed, or at least contained out of the theater (which would be unlikely with Englands life at stake), then we can successfully invade England. If not, we cannot and should concentrate our resources elsewhere. The Wehrmacht is unbeatable on land and would be able to defeat the British Army if we can land in strength and sustain the force. Otherwise we should concentrate on wiping out the Balkans and North Africa after France is defeated, thereby securing the southern flank and giving us easy access to the Middle East and southern Russia.
chrisvalla
28 Dec 04, 10:48
If the UK is invaded, the US WILL reply and begin moving against us behind the scenes, if not outright, we must be prepared to sink every ship we can find bound for England. Churchill's buddy Roosevelt will have no trouble convincing his American public that we are some kind of scourge that needs to be dealt with more so than communism.
Hmmm... perhaps the Japanese card will come in handy to distract them for a bit...
There is the key. If the RN can be destroyed, or at least contained out of the theater (which would be unlikely with Englands life at stake), then we can successfully invade England.
U-BOATS U-BOATS U-BOATS :devil: :devil: :devil:
Actually, I think a solid air force would not be unappreciated to keep the supply lines open. Of, course the British are probably thinking the exact same thing, in reverse...
TacCovert4
05 Jan 05, 17:04
Dealing with the RN: There is no possible way to contain the Royal Navy out of the North Sea and North Atlantic. If Britain is directly attacked, every battleship, cruiser, destroyer, and Kayak belonging to GB will run straight for home, D*** the consequences. But we can use this to our advantage. spread a wide scout UB net in the atlantic, then follow it up with UB 'strike teams of 10 15 boats. That way we can catch the piecemeal RN task forces and overwhelm their destroyer escorts. Remember, it is fairly easy to destroy a destroyer (I do it all the time on Combat flight simulator) even with Mutual flak from surrounding ships, but we will be hard pressed to blast a mobile battleship fleet.
Gibraltar, TSAR you bring up some good points, but I think we can pull off an paradrop, followed up by a semi-amphibious landing. that way we can ignore spain for the time being.
Russia, I honestly don't know what to do about our commie friend/enemy to the east. We can ally, but that will fall apart quickly, we can attack, but that will waste all of our resources, or we can wait, which seems to be the best option for now.
Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I've been on christmas break.
Russia, I honestly don't know what to do about our commie friend/enemy to the east. We can ally, but that will fall apart quickly, we can attack, but that will waste all of our resources, or we can wait, which seems to be the best option for now.
(TacCovert4)
Indeed it is, for now. But, when England is out of the way, we must look at things in this light; the regimes of Germany, Soviet Russia, Italy and Japan are all criminal organizations. As with criminal organizations everywhere, they are out for what they can get.
Stalin, for example, has switched from the Trotskyite doctrine of world-wide revolution to that of "Socialism in one country". He has had to make this switch because although he has an enormous Army, Russia lacks the technology to take on the world and well he knows it.
With England out of the way, an Alliance between Germany, Soviet Russia, Italy and the Japanese Empire won't fall apart, because that Alliance is Stalin's only chance of spreading the "Gospel according to Marx", and well he knows that also.
Furthermore, I'm thinking such an Alliance need only last as long as Germany wants it to. The thought occurs to me that there might well be a coup d'etat in Russia after we have got what we want out of this marriage of convenience. :devious:
Casey
eacaldwell
08 Jan 05, 09:34
We talk about winter warfare and the worst winter in recorded history in russia . we have to remember hindsight is 20/20. nobody at the time gave alot of thought to the med. jsut an observation. really enjoy the insights from everyone and it doees give you something to think about. :)
BarcelonaBlom
08 Jan 05, 15:58
Well this is meant to use our idea that we do have hindsight on our side and thusly we can change history. I for one don't want to just see WWII done out again I want to see what if things are different. The Med. is possibly an objective but it seems we got a bit off topic to Russia. I guess we'll find out our next options in Episode III.
eacaldwell
08 Jan 05, 18:38
I understand not replaying ww2 but the weather? A better veriable would be economic. Production verses developement would allow Germany to decide on use of some very interesting equipment that could have been available sooner.
BarcelonaBlom
09 Jan 05, 10:19
I understand not replaying ww2 but the weather? A better veriable would be economic. Production verses developement would allow Germany to decide on use of some very interesting equipment that could have been available sooner.
I think some people have touched on that but some have hinted at allying with Russia... But I want to see the incentive for both nations for that Course of Action. (Or someone did and I lost it in the maze of replies)
TacCovert4
11 Jan 05, 12:24
By watching the thread status, I believe that with some perserverance the Axis will trump the allies. Our EpI thread is more used than their EPII. Forward Armies of the Reich! :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:
I think some people have touched on that but some have hinted at allying with Russia... But I want to see the incentive for both nations for that Course of Action. (Or someone did and I lost it in the maze of replies)
The incentive is that both could have preyed on the weaker states.
the ussr getting the lands which where once part of the russian empire(baltic states, finland, eastern poland, bessarabia for example) but also a way for expansion to the south.
Germany get's a free hand in europe in return.
Russia also had another incentive, maybe even more important: they needed the time to restructure their army and strenghten their defenses. The USSR had a strategy which ran along these lines: an enemy advance would be held by a defensive line for a short time and then a fast host of tanks and airplanes would be unleashed on the enemy in a titanic offensive.
Now prior to the fall of poland the defensive line was called the stalin line. But when the USSR got eastern poland, the leadership decided to build a new line at the new border and abandoned the stalin line.
In addition the war with finland had shown that the army needed to be restructured. This proved to be a gigantic task. Between 1939 and 1941 161 additional divisions had been created and the amount of new officers needed was fantastic. This coupled with the purges among the officer corps created a sheer impossible task.
The german leadership wasn't thinking along those lines, though.
To Hitler, the communists where the big enemy of the facists and the fertile planes of russia were there to provide the germans with lebensraum; living space. It would be an ideological war and one of colonial conquest, because russia would become the colony Germany never had.
The war with the west was a (unfortunate and unwanted(for hitler that is)) side effect of their invasion of poland, which was an obstacle which had to be removed to make place for the real thing: the invasion of the Sovjet Union.
In addition the war with finland had shown that the army needed to be restructured.
Fortunately the Allies have decided not to fight the Winter War. If the game is true to history the Soviets wont even know how badly lead their troops are until we arrive in Moscow.
BarcelonaBlom
12 Jan 05, 07:15
The incentive is that both could have preyed on the weaker states.
the ussr getting the lands which where once part of the russian empire(baltic states, finland, eastern poland, bessarabia for example) but also a way for expansion to the south.
Germany get's a free hand in europe in return.
Russia also had another incentive, maybe even more important: they needed the time to restructure their army and strenghten their defenses. The USSR had a strategy which ran along these lines: an enemy advance would be held by a defensive line for a short time and then a fast host of tanks and airplanes would be unleashed on the enemy in a titanic offensive.
Now prior to the fall of poland the defensive line was called the stalin line. But when the USSR got eastern poland, the leadership decided to build a new line at the new border and abandoned the stalin line.
In addition the war with finland had shown that the army needed to be restructured. This proved to be a gigantic task. Between 1939 and 1941 161 additional divisions had been created and the amount of new officers needed was fantastic. This coupled with the purges among the officer corps created a sheer impossible task.
The german leadership wasn't thinking along those lines, though.
To Hitler, the communists where the big enemy of the facists and the fertile planes of russia were there to provide the germans with lebensraum; living space. It would be an ideological war and one of colonial conquest, because russia would become the colony Germany never had.
The war with the west was a (unfortunate and unwanted(for hitler that is)) side effect of their invasion of poland, which was an obstacle which had to be removed to make place for the real thing: the invasion of the Sovjet Union.
Thanks Owen those seem like excellent reasons.
Tsar: Dang straight!!!
dan frick
13 Jan 05, 01:59
We need to decide what the world will look like after the war. I envision a europe with Germany at the forefront of a collection of client states.
As for France, I favor an attack destroying the three northernmost Maginot fortresses. This will put our forces on the best roadnet behind Allied forces. Whichever way they move to attempt to recover we attack local villages with Stukas to choke the roads with refugees.
Long term - no Battle of Britain. There is not a chance in hell of invading successfully. It would even be tough to invade unsuccessfully.
Italy must be brought in early to dicuss post war benefits and wartime responsibilities. Italy should declare war on France, not England. There a lot of Italian-American voters, let England take a hit. The U-boat campaign must be persued vigorously, under a separate service arm. As losses mount, ask America to broker a diplomatic end to the war. There must be numerous holidays commemerating the Christmas Truce, to get the ball rolling. Insist that the new gov'ts for Poland and France be set up with the help of the League of Nations.
While this is going on, we spend 1 year (1941) integrating captured plant and military equipment into our forces. None of this invade Russia with 300 types of motorcycles sprinkled throughout the various divisions crap. Invade Russia after first spring thaws. Prepare for a two year campaign. Smash Russia's armies and take Moscow. All roads may go to Rome, But, in Russia all railroads go to Moscow. Whatever the first peace offer is take less than that.
New world order: Facsist France, Poland, Czeckoslovakia, Ukraine. Peace with England, America isolationist as to Europe.
Did I mention what we do when Japan attacks the US? There's a reason.
TacCovert4
13 Jan 05, 09:29
Welcome Dan:
We will have to invade England eventually, because it is like a massive assault carrier sitting off Europe's coast. But it will take a lot of time to do that.
I'm not looking I swear as an allied side voter.
But hey, if this is going to be a continuing thing, and the Allied side had a good thing going, only now for some reason participation in the discussion has died down... Perhaps you should get on with the French invasion before the thread dissappears into the past six month lot!
So for the Allied experience's sake, please get a move on, I know you are doing a great job for our entertainmen, and we had a good fantasy Parliament discussing the war, but it has now gone, as nothing seem's to have happened, or everyone has changed sides!!! :o
Yours blindly; Mr Poundr.
BarcelonaBlom
22 Jan 05, 09:26
Just to go off topic for a post... believe it or not 17poundr, you are the first Finn I've met that isn't named Juha....
Europe Aflame
22 Jan 05, 12:01
From the Desk of the Axis Supreme Commander:
================================================== ======
Memo
From Korps Commander
Good news! Four weeks into the campaign against France and we are roughly 60 kilometers from Paris. The Belgians and Dutch have surrendered.
I must also report that our divisions have taken greater casualties than expected. Our front line divisions are running out of steam. Fresh divisions are being moved forward, but we lose precious time in doing so. French resistance is stiff and isn't showing any cracks. Although our intense firepower forces them to retreat, they've fallen back in good order. The same goes for the Luftwaffe: while it is dealing out a beating against the allied airforces, it is also taking a great deal of punishment from British fighters based in France.
We will continue the attack.
Signed X
================================================== ======
Memo
From the Ambassador to Italy
Italy is in the war and has even made several probing attacks over the French Alps. Their army is mobilizing and their airforce will go far in aiding us against the French/British planes. I have also just gotten word that they've reinforced their army in N. Africa. We've scheduled a meeting with German commanders to plan for a possible attack against the British forces in Egypt.
Signed X
================================================== ======
Memo
From Northern Command, Oslo
Norway has been reinforced by two and a half corps with another division immediately available if needed.
Signed X
================================================== ======
Memo
From the Italian East African Commander, Asmara
British forces are on the move. Total confusion reigns here. I am trapped here in Asmara and have heard that British forces are on the outskirts of Addis Ababa. We are cut off from returning to the city. I fear our forces have been taken by surprise and communications aren't getting through.
Signed X
================================================== =======
BarcelonaBlom
23 Jan 05, 08:17
Hmmm... it seems we have the historical outcome....
TacCovert4
24 Jan 05, 08:17
Which is fine, as long as Japan doesnt' attack Pearl Harbor and get the US in the war.
Hmmm... it seems we have the historical outcome....
Let’s hope it’s not to historical
What news of the BEF in France?
Casey
Europe Aflame
26 Jan 05, 19:05
First pictures from the war in the west!
Much loss of life as entire French and British Divisions are destroyed!
Thousands of Allied prisoners taken in sweeping Panzer engagements!
Paris soon to fall!!
(click on the thumbnails below for larger versions of each image)
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/Thumb France1.jpg (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/France1.jpg)
Desperate, exhausted and hungry - grateful French troops await humane treatment from German victors.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/Thumb France2.jpg (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/France2.jpg)
The wreckage of battle - once proud vehicles lie burnt out and abandoned on the roadside - victims of the inexorable German advance to the west.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/Thumb France3.jpg (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/France3.jpg)
Victorious German Panzers take a short break before heading forward once again.
More to follow...
Europe Aflame
26 Jan 05, 19:08
...Continued.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/Thumb%20France4.jpg (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/France4.jpg)
Meanwhile, above in the skies, German Paratroopers launch their assault.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/Thumb%20France5.jpg (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/Andrew/EA/France5.jpg)
No mercy for the enemies of Germany - if troops will not surrender, they must be burned out of their hiding places.
Victory is certain!!
Allright, lets keep pounding them!
Nice to know something IS happening, i almost thought we were doing a real sitz krieg.
When france has fallen the real test will come.
Go for the egypt & malta guys. :cool:
BarcelonaBlom
28 Jan 05, 16:41
I'm not part of the l337 crowd but I believe this deserves a w00t.
Gents, a word from 'outside' the story for just a moment, if you please. I have word on a new poll, some information to share with you, and a quick caveat about this project!
First off, there has been discussion on the Europe Aflame ICS project over the past couple of days, and we're making some changes to how we do things. We're going to try to provide more content, more polls, more options, and better chances for your input. We're still determining the finer points of our new system, but be sure to watch for interesting changes as the project continues!
Secondly, our writers are working on a new poll right now. Both sides must consider the next move as the French campaign winds down. The poll will be available shortly.
Lastly, a quick caveat.
The pictorial articles that are posted in the threads are using actual images and text from real sources (particularily SIGNAL transmissions), so bear in mind that we cannot alter the images and such to coincide with our somewhat different reality. We try to only use the ones that make sense, but bear with us when it's not quite a perfect fit!
The 'reports' style posts (such as the ones you receive from the Axis Supreme Commander), however, are completely accurate, and reflect the current situation completely.
So keep in mind some of the posts you see are for flavor and enjoyment (such as the authentic pictures), while others are presenting you accurate sitreps.
Let the war continue!
What does he mean “outside the story”?:confused: Does he think this a book or maybe being run on a computer somewhere? We’re living this damn it. Sheesh, some people just don’t know reality.
TacCovert4
02 Feb 05, 08:15
I think Mantis means OOC & IC :D
chrisvalla
02 Feb 05, 13:25
I find it fairly easy to follow.
There are (unfortunately) only so many factors that can be changed within the scope of the game that in 20/20 would make for a grand re-vision of how things happen(ed).
1 How were the loses of our airborne troops dropped in belgium and holland? We need them for future operations.
2 Did we destroy the BEF?
3 How severe are the losses overal?
4 When is it possible to move troops to North Africa?
5 We need to coordinate the operations with the italians? Have liaison officers been exchanged?
6 When will the defeat of France be expected?
7 what news is there of the US, the USSR and spain?
8 Why is norway reinforced with a corps?
Doctor Sinister
02 Feb 05, 15:57
What does he mean “outside the story”?:confused: Does he think this a book or maybe being run on a computer somewhere? We’re living this damn it. Sheesh, some people just don’t know reality.
:laugh: BIG LAUGHS!
Dr. S.
You look cool as ever Dr. S.
Doctor Sinister
02 Feb 05, 16:32
You look cool as ever Dr. S.
Glad someone likes it!
Dr. S.
Hmmmm...we will see how this plays out. However, I still don't beleive that involving Italy in the war was a good idea and that it may cause us a lot of grief later on. If we take Malta things should work out ok.
TacCovert4
02 Feb 05, 17:35
Hmmmm...we will see how this plays out. However, I still don't beleive that involving Italy in the war was a good idea and that it may cause us a lot of grief later on. If we take Malta things should work out ok.
The Key is not to exclude Italy, if we do they will try something themselves. The key is to channel Italy's energy to where we want it, like somewhere where they won't hurt themselves. Oh, dear, looks like we're screwed.
The best use of Italy's forces would be for garrison duty and for peripherial operations. If we can take Malta, Gibraltar and Egypt, we can concentrate the italians for garrison duty there and free up the bulk of German forces for the most important offensive operations (ie Russia). By taking Gibraltar and Egypt, this severly limits Allied operations in the Med and the Italians should be good enough when concentrated in the choke points (as opposed to defending the whole southern European coast) to keep any Allied offensives at bay, at least for a little while until we can rail in German reinforcements.
TacCovert4
02 Feb 05, 21:09
The best use of Italy's forces would be for garrison duty and for peripherial operations. If we can take Malta, Gibraltar and Egypt, we can concentrate the italians for garrison duty there and free up the bulk of German forces for the most important offensive operations (ie Russia). By taking Gibraltar and Egypt, this severly limits Allied operations in the Med and the Italians should be good enough when concentrated in the choke points (as opposed to defending the whole southern European coast) to keep any Allied offensives at bay, at least for a little while until we can rail in German reinforcements.
The Italians will want to attack something too though, so we must be prudent and give them simple targets, like Luxembourg. :laugh: . If they are in a choke point maybe they can hold off the allies, b/c they won't have a chance to run away. :laugh: I'd have the Italians do some small fights against the Arabians or something to keep them occupied. We'll need to take out Arabia anyway so we can reach Persian Oil.
The Italians will want to attack something too though, so we must be prudent and give them simple targets, like Luxembourg. :laugh: . If they are in a choke point maybe they can hold off the allies, b/c they won't have a chance to run away. :laugh: I'd have the Italians do some small fights against the Arabians or something to keep them occupied. We'll need to take out Arabia anyway so we can reach Persian Oil.
Hey tac,
Your sure you want to turn our brave Italian friends loose on the arabs? :o
The mighty warriors had a tough time liberating ethiopia, subduing fearsome unarmed natives with only tanks and airplanes.
They might fail you know? :nuts:
Besides some arabs welcomed german forces as liberators.
Let's see: what if we use the Italian army to...,
eh...,
eh...,
Invade norway!!!!!!
Yes, that is it. This should be a walk over for them.:whist:
Otherwise they can invade eh..., eh...., Sicily? Corsica?
San Marino?
agreed we must keep the italians happy .we have to watch them to make sure they dont hurt themselves(or us).garison duty would be good for them if they behave themselves,might have to help them but not to much.they will probably want to join in the fight for their own roman glory though ,they did have some good troops,to bad their equipment sucked.can we grab they french fleet this time? bottle up the harbors with mines or something so it cant escape.the kriegsmarine is good but its to damn small .we will need the french fleet against the english.
if we do the battle of britain thing again stick with military targets,none of this silly terror bombing against civillian targets ,and if theres a dunkirk this time dont let the bef get away.
I have read this interesting proposal before, but I wonder if it would be helpfull.
The problem is that with having the french fleet you don't have the french sailors. It's unlikely they would serve the germans and in the end they scuttled their fleet when the game was up.
So even if you would get the fleet you still lack people, good people, to man it.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.