View Full Version : EA-ICS: AXIS Episode IV
Good afternoon, Generals.
By now, I assume all of you have read the latest situation briefings. (If not, you can find them here: Europe Aflame Episode IV (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p&p=2342&page=1)). This information will bring you up to speed on Operation Seelowe, and all other military activity in the past several months.
Now we must plan our next move. We will have a short period of time for discussion, and then a vote will take place consisting of the top options, as chosen by the Axis Supreme Commander.
The obvious choces so far are as follows:
Africa and the Suez Canal. We have a large army on the Libya/Egypt border, composed of the following:
Italians - roughly 9 corps; Spanish - 3 corps; German - DAK.
We can directly reinforce Libya with more Italian and Spanish units, and potentially additional German units as well. There are also supply issues - we can increase German presence in the African theatre with the capture of Malta, Crete or Cyprus. Presently, due to the capture of Gibraltar, we can support an additional Panzer Korps.
Further thought should be given to the possibility of an invasion of Turkey. If we do not move towards Ankara, the capital, we have it on good intelligence that the Russians will not react. It will, however, allow us to capture a road/rail network that will allow us to move on the British in the Middle East and Suez with a supply line that extends by land back into Europe. Unlimited ability to support Germans in the African theatre, were we to come from this direction; likewise, it would be advantageous to force the British to fight a two-front war.
As an aside - if no action is to be taken on this front, we should consider removing the vast amounts of men and materiel stockpiled in Libya...
The Balkans. With Rumania and Bulgaria already in the war, the importance of taking Yugoslavia and Greece are lessened. The other reason - securing a port in the Med is also a moot point, now that Italy has joined us. We have information that the Croats will support us, and will form several division sized units of dubious quality were we to take Belgrade. However, we can count on large-scale partisan activity in these sectors.
On the plus side, this campaign could cause Hungary to finally join our cause.
Prepare for Russia. There are several considerations with this plan. Firstly, the vast majority of our forces are located in France. It will take several months to redeploy them all to the east front, and give them time to rest and refit. Secondly - were we to decide to advance from a second front on Russia, such as Scandinavia, significant time would be required to transport the required forces across the Baltic. It is already late July, and we could attack the communists as early as Spring.
There is also the possibilities of combining two, all or none of the above options, Generals, or throwing out some of your own. Time is pressing, as always, so please debate this amongst yourselves, and have options ready for the Supreme Commander shortly. He will then provide you with a Poll to vote on, and your decisions will be carried out on the front!
I deeply regret our failure in the Invasion of England. In my own opinion the news of Russian troop movements in the East is a most ominous sign. Obviously, we cannot leave our entire Eastern flank open to attack. I support the creation of a defensive line in the East so that in the event of a Communist attack we could hold out until reinforcements could reach that area. However, our main goal now must be the capture of Africa and the Suez Canal. If we were to invade Turkey and then land troops in both Libya and Egypt we could cut off a tremendous amount of Allied soldiers. Furthermore, the capture of Africa will allow us to strike into the Caucus region of Russia and quickly seize the oilfields there. My vote is for Africa!!
Doctor Sinister
11 Nov 05, 14:10
Who's idea was it to attack England in the first place?!?! Erm.... :o
FWIW, I say strike at Africa with all possible speed and resource and prepare to move East in retaliation for Soviet aggression.
But you might not want to listen to me as I suggested we go with Sea Lion...
Dr. S.
:laugh: And who was the only general who voted against Sea Lion........ :) Yes, Africa is the key now to our victory. We must hurry before the Americans can make a significant impact on the war.
Doctor Sinister
11 Nov 05, 14:28
:laugh: And who was the only general who voted against Sea Lion........ :) Yes, Africa is the key now to our victory. We must hurry before the Americans can make a significant impact on the war.
Attacking England was a sound strategic move, our troops have let us down. There must be purges!!
Dr. S.
GeneralMonty2
11 Nov 05, 17:03
Not only am I for the North African/Middle East option, I also think we should discuss with our Japanese allies their involvement in this war. We should urge them to invade US and other Allied colonial possessions in the Pacific. This will open up a two-front war for the US. The Allies would have to commit manpower and resources to the Pacific front as well as to the European front. As it is, several British forces in Egypt did come from India. So let's have Britain shift their Indian manpower to the Pacific without bolstering their forces in Egypt. With the Allies' Pacific colonies threatened, they will have to readjust their military manpower away from our intended targets.
Yes Turkey, then Africa. Would it be possible to get Turkey on our side without an invasion? We could promise to return the middle East to them.
The_Tactician
12 Nov 05, 01:56
I would say Africa would be the best target, as well as bolstering defences in the East, however I am not sure of the Italian's battle worthiness. Any soldier can act as cannon fodder, but it takes backbone to win battles. If Rommel was commanding them I would have no arguments, but I have serious doubts if anyone else could command the Italians properly. Back on subject of Africa...An attack on the Suez should be our first priority. From there we can control traffic from the Mediteranean to the Indian and vica versa. It would aslo be an excellent spot to strike from to obtain oil rish lands to the east.
The_Tactician
12 Nov 05, 02:08
I wonder, though...what do you suppose the Allies' reaction would be to us invading Russia? Of course the democracy loving Westerners will be reluctant to ally with the Communists, but as they say "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" Should we then wait for the imminent attack from the Soviets and then counter-attack so they look like evil agressors to the Westernors, or blow full steam at them immediately? If we wait they will certainly fortify their position. Let's not forget, however, Napoleon Bonoparte and what the...'unique' Russian weather did to his mighty army.
Doctor Sinister
12 Nov 05, 04:13
We already have justification for attacking the Soviets in view of their blatant aggression during the Sea Lion operation. They started this, let's finish it. The western allies are bound to come on board and join our cause if we announce it as a crusade againat Bolshevism.
Dr. S.
No!! We cannot lead Germany into a two-front war as in WW1. Lets destroy the Allies in Africa and the Middle East. Then we can strike into Russia from both the Caucus and Eastern Front regions.
The_Tactician
13 Nov 05, 22:38
Join our side? After our failed invasion of Britain?! I think not. But Napoleon has a valid point. Two fronts would spread us rather thin and allow the enemy to sort us out piece meal.
KG_AirborneBob
13 Nov 05, 22:58
We must win the logistical battle looming in front of us...the battle in afrika and the middle east. Forcing the allies in a two front war is paramont to our sucess!! Glorious troops of the Third Reich will reign supreme with the oil rich territories of these lands. The Amis will think twice about their decision to enter this conflict if we pressure our Eastern freinds the Japenese to broaden their front in the Pacific. A direct threat to the western coast of America will force them to draw resources earmarked for Europe to the Pacific. This and only this must be our course of action. Turkish influence must be persuaded to our side, and then we must contemplate the Russian problem, for now they are satisfied with our withdrawl from England, but the Bear is not sleeping.
GeneralMonty2
14 Nov 05, 00:45
It's true that the Africa/Middle East option will cause us to thin out our forces. So let's make the Allies do the same by bringing Japan into the war.
Oh, and by the way, are we just gonna do a straight-forward invasion of Turkey? Or use politics and try to encourage them to cooperate with us? Or simply do both.
KG_AirborneBob
14 Nov 05, 01:15
Perhaps the Turks could be persuaded to join our struggle against the ever hungry bear to their east....just look at their preparations of late on our mutual borders. The Russian aquistion of Turkey is a goal that Stalin must be considering...access to the Med. Yes; Turkey must be made to join us...Diplomatically by choice, Militarily if necessary. Could a "Polish" scenario work here...."Russian" troops crossing into Turkey....its an idea that bears (no pun intended) consideration. :hush:
KG_AirborneBob
14 Nov 05, 01:22
I think we need an updated Strategic Map..who is where......
Couldn't we harass the troops in England with air power, while cutting off shipping to the island with aircraft and ships? Or do I overestimate our immediate naval and air power?
If this is possible, I believe we should then focus our offensive army units in a sweep through the Balkans (maintaining some divisions in france and on our borders so the allies don't have easy pickings) and then across Africa and the Middle East. Unless Britain is heavily weakened by then and would be a push over (then a new invasion of England would go through) we'd focus our strength in an attack on Russia.
I would say that securing Egypt is critical to our success. Since we already have Gibraltar, taking Egypt means cutting off Allied access to the entire Med theatre. Taking Malta, Crete and Cyprus are also worthy targets, although I fear Malta has been heavily fortified after the loss of Gibraltar. I think we could probably go either way with the rest of the Balkans. I doubt they can really hurt us militarily but they are in a very strategic position to cause a lot of damage should they switch to the Allied cause at a bad time (ie if/when we are engaged in Russia). So I would say better safe than sorry and take them. I also feel that if we do decide to secure Yugoslavia and Greece that our Balkan allies should take a lead role. We have been supplying them with tons of equipment, now we should see if they put it to good use. I say that we rest as many German units as possible and allow our Allies to take the Balkans, while providing a supporting role if needed.
The_Tactician
14 Nov 05, 21:45
Now I know this may sound unintelligable and downright idiotic, but what is the possibility of bringing countries in the Americas into the war on our side? As I understand it, American and Latin-American relations have been less than desirable as a result of the Mexican-American War. Maybe we could try again to bring Mexico into the fight, promising them land which was originally theirs. Or perhaps I digress too much from the current situation. Either way, I'm just trying to explore more options.
:) I'm afraid not. Mexico is a U.S. ally. In the actual war they declared war on the Axis in 1942. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already fighting us.
The_Tactician
14 Nov 05, 22:20
I feel very smrt. :nuts:
Yes....I purposly left out the 'a' in 'smart'.
On a more serious note:
In that case I'm brought back to the current issue at hand. Either way, I think that the Soviets will join the Western Allies. We must decide if we want to postpone that as long as we can or try and knock the Soviets out of the race before they get any stronger.
KG_AirborneBob
14 Nov 05, 23:44
Perhaps not Mexico....but shall we look further south...the Neutral countries such as Argentina, (sic) Honduras, and the like..what about the lauded Panama Canal...now there's a strategic target. We close the canal and the Allies would be delayed from supplies up to a month or more and bring attention to the weakeness of their Western coast. Plans should be drawn for a sabatoge mission on the Canal, if we can not out right deystroy it. :devil:
GeneralMonty2
15 Nov 05, 12:31
I agree with Bob. Why not send some agents to the tropical paradise of Panama and do a little sabotage work? Or take a "neutral" fuel tanker or two through the canal and do a car bombing mission fuel tanker style. The canal would be plugged up for months.
The_Tactician
15 Nov 05, 18:40
Woah....my suggestion is actually being taken seriously. I must take a moment to reflect. :D
GeneralMonty2
15 Nov 05, 21:28
Here's another idea that might aid our Africa/Middle East option: Let's encourage the Iraqi Prime Minister, Rashid Ali, to uprise against the British. Certainly, this uprising would threaten the oil fields and the British would have to send many troops to intervene. Let's give the uprising the works by supplying the Iraqis with small arms, ammunition, and equipment. This uprising will deter British troops away from the African and Turkish fronts.
Doctor Sinister
16 Nov 05, 09:28
Here's another idea that might aid our Africa/Middle East option: Let's encourage the Iraqi Prime Minister, Rashid Ali, to uprise against the British. Certainly, this uprising would threaten the oil fields and the British would have to send many troops to intervene. Let's give the uprising the works by supplying the Iraqis with small arms, ammunition, and equipment. This uprising will deter British troops away from the African and Turkish fronts.
Yes, let's get the British sucked into a war in Iraq which will never end! Hang on... :D
Dr. S.
Dragging Central and South America into the conflict IS a very interesting idea indeed! There is realistically no way the Allies are going to turn on the Soviets, so I think we have to do that by ourselves with the help of our Balkan allies. Secure the Balkans by providing our allies there with equipment and some troops, if necessary, and leave them do the job while concentrating on Suez and on getting Turkey on our side. Seal off Russia, identify prime targets that will cripple its ability to retaliate and head straight for them, thus avoiding (or trying to) a prolonged campaign. The Bear is not sleeping and waiting any longer will not help our cause at all. A successful strike at Russia will make the Allies think twice, especially if a front can be simultaneously opened in their backyard!
The_Tactician
19 Nov 05, 00:48
This is a hard decision. While I am still for trying to get Central and South American countries on our side, I am quite befuddled by what we should do closer to home. IE: Concentrating on Russia or Africa. An updated strategic map would make the deliberations easier.
ive been trying to get the sudanese,indians and the mesopotamians stirred up(dont forget the ira) against their brit overlords for awhile now(historically there were anti brit movements). how many countries has the amis bullyed their way into?also a silly idea about a type of st. naizaire type raid on the panama canal.
anyway i prefer going into africa(which i originally voted for) ,cyprus and crete.if malta is to hard to crack starve them out. the oil there would be a great help.the balkans would just be a bloody mess and a waste of time effort and resources.
getting the japs into would nice( they almost made it to india).spread out the allied troops let them worry about being everywere.
putting up a firm wall against the russian horde would be very necessary.
i like turkey but can we get them (and maybe the balkans)to join us without force?
sieg heil :toast:
i mourn for our brave commerads lost in seelowe adventure
:) I have never played the Europe Aflame scenario on TOAW........however, I'm not sure if it is possible to create an uprisising in Iraq or invade South America. I believe now that Sea Lion has failed that Africa has to be our goal. Let us turn the Mediterannean into an Axis pond.
Mare nostrum! I like the idea! Of course, Africa seems the next logical step, but we should not underestimate other fronts or it is our forces that will be stretched all around. How about leaving the passive defence to our allies (Spain and Italy to the west, Romania and Bulgaria to the South-East) backed with part of our armies, especially to the North? If we secure the Mediterranean in the manner Corporal Hip suggests (and General Napoleon dreams of :) ), we should not have problems defending Africa after taking it. But I still maintain my point of view (as much as a recruit can) that after Africa, Russia should be a main target, in one way or another (I suspect that another treaty with the Communists is all but realistic). A diversion :devious: strike on Britain would keep Allied attention there and provoke the Russians to act first, probably without much of a preparation. :devil:
Something like an operation Seekaninchen this time, with minimum losses! :p Although I’d be more than happy to wave good bye (and good riddance) to all the Brits on their way to Canada :laugh: (while sending a pack of U-s after the ships)! :devil:
If we could have these questions answered I believe it would greatly improve our capability to make a decision:
1. How much did we loose in Sea Lion? What is the strength of the Lufwaffe? The Kriegsmarine?
2. If we did invade Africa do we have the naval or air superiority in the Med to keep it supplied? Or do we risk making a dash through Turkey and attacking Africa from the Middle East?
The_Tactician
23 Nov 05, 22:47
A dash through Turkey might alert the Allies to our intended target and allow them to shore up defences that will keep our men trapped there for months. No matter what choice we select, we must attack with everything and not hold back.
"Audacity, audacity, always audacity" as our opponents would say. They forgot that and look at them now. We must not forget it either.
yes an updated map would be nice.also curious about the luftwaffe and km. i think the allies will probably reinforce afrika anyway no mater what we do.how fast can we get in there,going through turkey would slow us down ,it might be nice to have later though.can probably count on the allies doing what they can to stir up the soviet bear.(what are the odds of another russian revolution)weve got to avoid russia till the brits and amis are settled with ,their just waiting for us to get involved in russia.
what could be done to slowdown or distract the allied warmachine?
sieg heil :toast:
Gun_go_Boom
27 Nov 05, 04:54
ok, first post in this so there may a be point or two where I am a bit off of center, so if this does happen, then please forgive. Secondly, history and my recollection of it is not always perfect, but I do know a bit here and there so perhaps my own unique perspective will add some flavor that can be use in the overall campaign for world domination.
1.) Firstly, lets discuss the American continents. Clearly at this point the US and Canada are allied against us as part of the Allies. But as previously mentioned there are two major ways in which we can indirectly influence actions to be taken against them. First and foremost of these two scenarios is the Japanese. History shows that they are quite aggressive in combat and more than capable of holding their own as well. So, what I propose is to get our allies more directly active in this struggle and to attack the American bases and airfields in the Pacific ocean and Pacific Rim, to include the Hawaiian islands and in Alaska. Endstate in this sector would be to, if at all possible, prepare for actual landings on American soil in Alaska, Hawaii, California and Washington state. Secondly, our attention in South America should be refocused. There are a number of nuetral states here that would be sympathetic, I believe, to our cause (if memory serves many Nazi's were able to hide out in South America after Germany lost WWII). Perhaps we would be able to push this and allow for South American military actions be directed against the southern and/or southwestern states of the US. Perhaps these actions could even be coincided to occur at about the same time as Japan begins his landings on the US western seaboard. Imagine the effects that this would have on the American's and their resolve to be active in this war. Force them into fighting on the homefront and their overseas committment will surely dwindle. Reduce their ability to engage in combat here, in our "neck of the woods" and surely our war efforts will likely be more successful than ever thought of.
2.) Secondly, now lets consider the southern European sector. Truly Italy is now a part of us, and with that addition we now have access and control of the Mediterranean Sea. However, that is only one place from which we can enter the sea and cross over to Africa. However, I propose to you this course of action: by using a minimal amount of our own military we can lead an operation into the Balkans to secure those regions that are not already our own. A small contingent, no more than a corps I woudl suggest, just enough to set the example for our lesser Balkan brethren, should be sufficient when added with the bulk of their military formations. With this force, the remainder of the Balkans will be ours. This will allow us to leave our western frontier protected by Spain and Italy, again with some of our own forces to augment, as well as having an army, perhaps 2, in the north, while sending the bulk of our forces into Northern Africa, where I think we should concentrate our forces.
3.) With the DeutchesAfrikaKorps already in location in North Africa, we already have a toehold this theater. I propose we send more military there, as I can forsee a protracted campaign or series of campaigns waged by the British and Americans in the near future. Undoubtedly the Allies will see Africa as the soft point from which to attack into Europe in some vain effort to liberate the Reich for our grasp. Beef up what we have in both the North African deserts and the Mediterranean Sea (to support the African effort). From here we can further launch into the Middle East through Egypt and the Suez, and just imagine the resources that we can harness from control of this region. Along with this, if we can't get Turkey to fall into line with our plans, then we can move into Turkey, and ultimately, attack Russia from two fronts: the west from Poland and the Balkans (forgive me if my geography is a bit off...working without a map at the moment, but you should get the general idea of what I am trying to do here), and then another prong from the south, coming up from the Middle East.
4.) Finally, Russia herself. This could be a costly campaign, and thus why I have pressed for the control of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East first. With all these regions and the resources available by owning them, we will be in a much better platform from which to launch the invasion of the Sleeping Bear. Russia is certainly active, this cannot be ignored.
Endstate here, gentlemen, is the end of resistance in the European, North African/Mediterranean and Middle East theaters, so as to allow us to press the effort into Russia. By making it to this point we will be as formidable as the Roman Empire was during its height of power, and none truly will be able to challenge us. Let the Reich reign for a thousand years, and a thousand upon a thousand more, then!
KG_AirborneBob
27 Nov 05, 07:20
Welcome Gun go Boom, great to have you aboard...and wonderful insights. I think we can all generally agree on the Courses of Action (COA) before us:
1. Move into the Balkans...with or without the Turkish acedence to our cause.
2. Strengthen our presence in North Afrika thus pressuring the Brits/Ami's to a protracted engagement towards the Middle East.
3. Get our Eastern Allies the Japanenese to move into the Western Pacific, therby threatening, or even invading American terrioties and holdings.
and finally
4. Create a Southern presence in the Americas, drawing the Roosevelts attention closer to his home rather than ours.
What we need now is a timetable of operations. When can we get the Japenese to move...Our Italian freinds are eager for territorial conquest...the Balkans are ready for the picking...and Russia waits for us.
Kommeraden, we must seize the initative now that the British are reforming the Americans are arming and most of Europe is quiet for the time being. Action now will ensure that the Allies move to our schedule!!
Gun_go_Boom
27 Nov 05, 09:54
What we need now is a timetable of operations. When can we get the Japenese to move...Our Italian freinds are eager for territorial conquest...the Balkans are ready for the picking...and Russia waits for us.
My intent is to be poised to move into Russia very soon, probably around Spring to Summer 1941. Note that this is the timeframe in which our first echelons would be crossing into the Soviet territory. Russia is the goal and objective of everything leading up to this point, if we follow the points that I have outlined in my previous posting. Everything leading up to crossing into Russia is merely a diversion, an effort meant to divert attention elsewhere, or an effort into securing more resources to fuel the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. Attempting to take on Russia without adequate support and supplies would be devastating; one merely has to look at Napoleon to understand the reason I bring this up. He failed in Russia, due to poor supply lines and fighting the Russians on their turf and in their weather. We choose the timeline for the invasion and we will have everything we need to conduct this operation. All we need is to have all the pieces on the board in the right position. Hence drawing the Japanese into attacking the Americans in the Pacific Rim and west coast; hence using the Spanish and Italians to secure our western frontier and no more than a full Army Gruppe in the north. Thus we move into the North Africa to secure the mediterranean sea fully as we move into the middle east. Thus then also do we finally close off the Balkans and Turkey, from which we can launch a two, possibly even three pronged attack on Russia.
Mein Herren, this plan is easy to conceive, but bringing it to true fruition will be no easy task. Our men must be up to the task. I have every confidence that our commanders and senior leadership and staff can and will make this a reality. We must, however, begin to move more from the planning stage and into the realization stage. And that first step should be this:
a.) Get the Japanese involved in the Pacific. This is imperative and should be started before the attempts to get South American nations involved and on our side. This will give the Japanese time to secure holdings inthe Pacific rim, and should be able to better coincide a joint Japanese/South American operation aimed at the Western shores and southern states of the US.
b.) At the same time, we must shore up our forces in North Africa and allow them to reconsolidate now before all is lost. Secure Egypt and Libya, and then we can begin pushing the Allies out of the Sahara.
c.) Again, at the same time, move into the Balkans to secure this flank. Should our operations in North Africa for whatever reason fail, this will be a vulnerable spot from which the Allies will be able to attack us and that, quite simply, mein herren, is unacceptable. We must secure this region and secure it now.
d.) With North Africa and the Balkans secure, we can now begin to push into Turkey (from the Balkans) and the Middle East (from Egypt by way of the Suez canal). With Turkey and the Middle Eastern states in our grip, imagine then our power when we focus our efforts on Russia.
The time to act is now.
Sieg Heil!
JeremiahJohnson
28 Nov 05, 13:23
Hi to all!
The priorities as I see them are as follows:
1. Get Japan involved in the war. Otherwise I fear there is not much hope. I believe we would have bagged England had it not been for the US buildup there.
2. Take North Africa - the greatest military priority! If we lose here we will lose the strategic initiative and we will be vunerable from the underbelly. The Allies will have a pick at where to strike next. There is no doubt the they will reinforce their Torch effort and I'm sure they'll try to reinforce Egypt sailing around South Africa. Action should be taken immediately.
I think the Balkans should be left alone. Taking it would be easy but then it would become a nightmare with our forces beign bogged down fighting partisans. Let Italy and minor Axis allies countries contain the Balkans. If we can clear North Africa, take Suez and with already possesing Gibraltar, there is no way an Allied invasion could come from the Balkans.
3. Diplomatic solution of bringing Turkey into our fold - think it's much better than going in gung-ho. In any case the Soviets will become aware of our intentions about their southern flank. I fear military option would spread our forces too thinly.
4. War with the USSR is imminent. However, we should only strike when we are prepared, if possible using two or three pronged attack (Turkey and Finland?).
5.Consider diplomatic action to bring some of the American countries to the alliance to treathen US south flank.
To sum up: We cannot be strong everywhere both in attack and defence. I feel N. Africa is the most critical and military measures should be taken to ensure wictory there. I believe all other theathers should assume defensive stance (most so towards the USSR) and not waste the resources on Balkans and Turkey.
Furthermore I feel there is a big possibility the Soviets would intervene on the Turkish side if we were to pursue the military option there.
TacCovert4
28 Nov 05, 16:20
Note Herr Napoleon, I Disagreed With Seelowe from the begginning as well.
Well, the best plan for dealing with Africa, the amphibious invasion of the Middle East coupled with an assault into Egypt from Libya is now a moot point, so we must get into more interesting options.
I agree with either militarily or diplomatically enlisting Turkey to our aid. One way or another we will eventually need a land route to our wonderful new oil fields and there it is. However, we cannot make that route our logistics train for our invasion force, why, because if we do we risk russia invading and cutting our Afrika Forces off.
I agree as well with an uprising in the Iraq area. This would be most helpful to our forces when they break out of Libya. If enough Brits can be drawn down to just create a shell around Egypt, we should find it easy enough to crack.
On the note of C and S America. Although it sounds neat, and would be a general pain in the American's backsides, and is probably doable, it would further encourage the amis to assault us on our own land, in order to prevent such an occurance from happening again.
Of course, these are after all opinions, yours do not have to agree
Engineer 1888
28 Nov 05, 16:24
I am new so I may not be up to speed on everything that has happened but I feel that we should
1) Get Japan involved in the war as fast as possible and, when the inevitable Russian attack comes, have the Japanese pour into Siberia to force the Russians to keep troops far away from Germany.
2) Find as many friends in the Americas to take the war to the Americans and if possible get Japan to send some troops to reinforce any friends we find.
3)Take over the Midle East. Once it is taken, it will be fairly safe from Allied attack. Try landing a few divisons near the Suez Canal to shut that down quickly.
4)Try to get Ireland to join us against the hated British. From Ireland our Bombers could wreak havoc on any convoys that they send to England.
TacCovert4
29 Nov 05, 16:01
Interesting points E1888, but I have to respectfully disagree with your even numbered ones.
2)taking the war to America by enlisting aid from C and S American nations is nutz. Even if we could get allies there, which is unlikely, we would have to supply them with such equipment to allow an assault on US held interests that it would be easier to do it ourselves. Also attacking America directly has the anticipated reaction of every fiber of that massive nation (remember 3rd largest in world, and wealthy to boot) coming down on us with unmatchable production in military goods, and a massive manpower base. It would spell the Reich's demise quicker than not.
4) Enlisting the Irish. Not to say that it wouldn't be a good thing, just impossible. We lost the land battle for Britain, rather handily. Therefore, the Irish don't have anything to gain by helping us, and indeed they stand to lose what little they have through allied incursions.
on a lighter note, what kind of engineer are you 1888
The_Tactician
29 Nov 05, 17:14
Also attacking America directly has the anticipated reaction of every fiber of that massive nation (remember 3rd largest in world, and wealthy to boot) coming down on us with unmatchable production in military goods, and a massive manpower base. It would spell the Reich's demise quicker than not.
We launched a failed invasion upon Britain, their closest ally. Regardless of what we do now the Americans will become involved against the Axis Powers.
Engineer 1888
29 Nov 05, 18:03
I am a Field engineer
Back to business
1)What contries in Europe are not in the War yet and what will it take to get them in the war on our side?
2)How many Divisons of each type do we have and what areas are they in?
3)What plans do we have to deal with anyone in Europe who does not see the light and join our side?
4) I feel that we should see if we can find anti- British groups that will revolt in the British Commonweath and tie down as many British troops as possible. I'm thinking of India in particular as they dislike having the British run thier country. Also possible is Egypt if they revolt at the same time we land several divisons on the Egptian coast; the British will collapse very fast. A third possiblity is the Canadian province of Quebec as they dislike fighting wars with the British and might be able to cause major problems in North America especially if Japan and several South American countries are hammering away at the Americans and Canadians.
TacCovert4
30 Nov 05, 15:55
E1888 your 4th point is certainly one worth pursuing. If we could convince fringe groups in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Iran and India that the Axis would be the best way to go we might be able to get an ad hoc alliance of local forces from the Nile to the Far side of the Indus. With such local help, pacifying the area would not be nearly as difficult, and destroying the Colonial troops and British forces in those nations would be greatly simplified. Also it would effectively cut Turkey off from any help, which would encourage them to ally with us, thereby opening a massive back door into Russia. Having at least a somewhat friendly, or even neutral India, would aid our allies, the Japanese.
In response to the Tactician:
Historically it took a long time for the US to mobilize to invade Europe. This time allowed the Germans some measure of freedom in operations. Threatening America so close to home would cause them to panic, bringing the heavy end of a rather large hammer down on us quick, fast, and in a hurry. Time is both our ally and our enemy. This war is no longer a protracted struggle, but a speed chess game where both players are moving simultaneously.
Two things we must keep:
A secure border with Russia. There will be no hope of an armistice, or a favorable ending to this war if the Russian hordes attack in the east.
A secure Coast. Again, the Allies must not establish a beachhead in Europe, at any location. To do so would push us into a purely defensive war, one in which we cannot see a favorable conclusion.
It is my firm belief that the war must be ended quickly. This next campaign will most likely be the last purely offensive land grab we have left, before the Americans start pushing the Allied War Machine along. This means that we must gain the oil fields, and the lands necessary to German growth soon, so that we can sue for peace before we began to lose hard won territory.
The_Tactician
01 Dec 05, 22:56
Hmm...you bring up a good point, Tac....I never even thought about the option of stopping short of worldwide domination. Taking the oilfields would give us more leverge both politically and militarily. We could very well force the Allies to create peace with us. Then we can prepare for another war to finish them off.
:rifle:
The_Tactician
03 Dec 05, 01:11
Looking at a purley different side of it...one would win the Europe Aflame scenerio by taking Stalingrad and Moscow....forget everything else I said...we must take Stalingrand and Moscow. I know I have been switching sides often, but the Communists are the key now. In attacking them, we can also lead border countries afraid of the spread of Communism and claim a crusade against its vile influence. We would gain numerous allies, and therefore have to lose less of our troops in the fight. Stalingrad and Moscow....they are the key to victory. We should concentrate on them now... :salute:
KG_AirborneBob
03 Dec 05, 01:38
Granted the Russian goals are Stalingrad and Moscow....how do you propose we win them. We most look at the LOGISTICAL battle before us..OIL and down the line production facilities to reinforce our foeces are critical to victory. The oil fields of the Caucusses and the Middle East are the key. Thus we most poit the spear to that aim...North Afrika and Turkey/Balkans should be the focus. And once again we must thrust the Japanese to act in the Pacific to redirect the Amiricans into a two front war.
(MANTIS: Could we get a current SITREP for our forces soon, Thanx)
north afrika first we need the oil.do we have the uboats to blockade against allied reinforcements ?.im still against using force in the balkans,it would use up a lot of resources and more to keep them under control what can we do politically to persuade(or blackmail) them?unfortunatly they are the shortest way to the suez which we would need.unless we have total security in the med.if we do avoid the balkans (the fighting there would be as savage as russia).
however turkey would be a good ally,along with iraq and iran [are we not arayan brothers]{sorry to much propaganda}
as far as the soviet bear their aggression does warrent attention but later.along with stirring up the afformentioned countries how about the areas the bolshivicks had to counqer after thier civil war the ukraine ,latvia,estonia,lithuania,belorussia georgia,and the don river cossacks,whats finland doing ?leningrad,murmanskand archangelesk are rather close is uncle joe into his paranoia yet?
hows the luftwaffe holding up can we keep up bombing on the english ports and support north africa with a reserve.how is the fighting capability of our allies can they hold their own or will they need to stiffened up?sieg hiel :toast:
The_Tactician
04 Dec 05, 01:12
sieg hiel :toast:
No drinking on duty, Hip. :laugh:
TacCovert4
05 Dec 05, 14:17
First MED security, on this the Russian Campaign will depend. Once the oil is ours and the all important back door is there, I propose we attack Russia in February. Now before you call me insane about assaulting russia in the winter, it is the best way. When transport is at its most difficult it is us that will have the short supply lines, and the russians that will have to supply a starving and freezing army. Our Wehrmact will also be already equipped for winter ops, and when spring and summer roll around, they will simply ditch unneeded winter supplies, which can be picked up by our supply convoys on their return trips. This will give us the maximum number of effective fighting days in russia. Napoleon tried it in the spring/summer and made it to moscow by winter. If we start in the Winter, we can take Moscow befrore the first snows fall.
Also, if we could incite Russia to attack us, it would be of a great help. There army is mostly infantry, and would have to move slowly across German lands, whilst our panzers and mounted infantry could wait until the critical moment where a combined arms air and land force would destroy them. Then forces in Africa could race north through the Caucuses, taking the oil fields on their way to Stalingrad. With that city captured these forces would make a strong defensive perimeter around the city before moving in a slow advance under air coverage toward Moscow. With the best russian troops in a shambles and one of their great cities captured, the Kremlin would most assuredly panic and sue us for peace, which they would get, but with the loss of all of their European territories, and the Caususus oil fields.
daemonofdecay
05 Dec 05, 17:59
Russia owns Persia, Persia borders India, and India has large numbers of troops of varrying quality (from conscript to elite).
If we were to invade the middle East for oil, and then fight Russia and invade up into Georgia and that region, we would be open to an attack by large numbers of Indian troops.
I dont know if Japan is at war with England yet (didn't see anywhere saying anything), so my worry is that close to half a million to a million troops will pour across the Persian border the second we invade. Even Stalin opposing allowing these troops to cross may fail, as the Allies will not risk allowing us the oilfield.
Perhaps we may invite Russia to invade Turkey, and we can partition it like Poland. We can give USSR more control over the Black Sea, in exchange for thier contibution to a dual invasion of this region.
And if they take us up on our offer, when thier best troops are deep inside Turkey, we conduct an amphibious landing across the Black Sea!
------------------------------------
Now think of this:
(1) We convince Russia to further divide up the world between us! We give them Asia, we get Europe and Africa. A somewhat secret pact.
(2) We get Japan to threaten the British forces in India, perhaps by bringing more troops into Indo-China. This mean that most British troops will be in the East Pakistani region.
(3) The Invasion of Turkey begins, with Russian cooperation on the grounds that we will give them most of East and Northern Turkey, we will only take Constantinople (renaming it, of course) and some areas across the Agean.
(4) In the ports of Bulgaria and Romania, we amass an army, which we then send across the Black Sea to seize the East banks of the Black Sea (and critical Soviet bases along the Black Sea like Sevastopl)
(5) These sea landed troops, supported by the Regina Marina, will then strike directly across the supply lines of those Armies inside Turkey. We will cut them off, and seize the oil for ourselves. Now the Russian soldiers will be trapped between a still hostile Turkish army, and the german armys to the west. We could now convince the Turks that we will only take Constantinople if they will continue fighting the Russians (and if they dont, we just keep our armies out of the Turkish mainland, and use the Bulgarians to hold Constantinople).
(6) Our armies in Poland do NOT attack in any serious offensive, and in fact try and appear weak and ill equipped. Our Panzer division will pull back towards the north and south edges of Poland, and we will only leave a few token units of old Pz.IIs and reserve (sacrificial) units. Plus, we will alow a plane to crash behind Russian lines carrying maps that show how 'weak' we are in Poland, giving Stalin the impression that most of our armies are already in the Caucus region. Stalin will be in a rage at this blatant abuse of his trust, and will immedietly order all his units along the border to attack, without preperations. he will also call up his Far-East units and Siberian troops for the push south to recapture the oil.
(7) Our armies wait in Poland, falling back everytime the Russians get close, but pulling them further and further into the country. Our Far-Flanks, however, do not fall back. Once Russia has entered the center of Poland, our massed Panzer divisions attack from East Prussia and from the south, Hungary, Romania, and encircle the whole lot (or the most we can). The closer to Russia this pincer move take place at, the more units we surround.
Cut off and without supply, and ill equipped from thier hasty start, they will be consumed entirely, either being wiped out or surrendering en mass.
(8) With most Russian armies either trapped in the Poland Kessel or inside Turkey, we can now rampage at will amongs the inner regions of Russia, with no serious troop deployments threatening our advance from the south Northwards to take Stalingrad, although we will have to wait first for our armies to finish destroying the Russian troops in Poland. Once that is accomplished, we will not have to wait for a Winter Offensive, as the Russian army will now ONLY consist of those Siberians and some reserve units.
(9) With the large numbers of troops sure to surrender in Poland, we can maxamise our strength by promptly arming those we find to be suitable soldiers (Cossacks, Ukrainians, White-Russians, etc.) . Of course, trust for these units would be suitably low, but they would be perfect for guarding our oildfields in the Caucasus region from a push from the south by British colonial units, and would free up our units to finish the complete annexation of Russia (or at least it's Wester parts.).
(10) If we can get Russia to surrender, the we bring our armies back, and begin our invasion of the Middle East towards Egypt, or even towards India, where we might incite the locals with promises of self-rule! We could take the jewel from the Crown of England, and ensure our resource and manpower needs will be met for a long time to come!
Barbarossa? We don' need no steenkin' Barbarossa!
TacCovert4
06 Dec 05, 11:52
Veery interesting. A post of such thought demands further review before reply. Get back to you tomorrow.
sounds interesting demon.im still wary of the bear.
drinking on the job? me?
this better :smoke:
sieg hiel
TacCovert4
07 Dec 05, 15:53
sounds interesting demon.im still wary of the bear.
drinking on the job? me?
this better :smoke:
sieg hiel
Just cigarrettes?
Or the good S***?
Engineer 1888
08 Dec 05, 16:35
1) Why attack Turkey if they will join us in the war? Troops will be lost and the Turkish Army destroyed. Also, troops will need to stay to keep the Turks under control. Sucking Russia into Turkey may sound go; but they will not pull most of their army from Europe to take so insignificant parts of Turkey. The Black Sea is a Russian lake, so our transports will not make it to their destination.
2)Oil is more important than Russian Territory. After we have the oil we can then pour into Russia and crush them with help from our Japanese brothers. Once Egypt, Israel and Iraq are ours, it will take the Allies months to reach them.
3) When war with Russia does come, our first job is to destroy any port that the Allies can land supplies to help the Russians.
4) Any Europian countries that have not joined the war yet should be pressured to join on our side, especially Portugal and Finland. They are useful to The Allies and Russians if they join the Allies.
5) If we have not taken the Channel Islands yet, we should do that; and if possible also take the Isle of Wight as that would be a major propaganda victory for us. If we control the Isle of Wight, it will be very difficult for the Allies to move in the Channel.
In closing if Finland, Turkey and Portugal join our side, Japan joins the War and the Middle East is liberated from the British, we will have many more allies for our war on Russia.
daemonofdecay
08 Dec 05, 23:12
1) Why attack Turkey if they will join us in the war? Troops will be lost and the Turkish Army destroyed. Also, troops will need to stay to keep the Turks under control.
I do not belive Turkey will willingly join us. It would be like Poland allying with Russia (or us) instead of the allies. Squished between two powers, they will try and remain neutral as long as possible.
The reason I do not care if the Turkish army is destroyed or not is the fact that Turkey will remain only as a pathway into the Georgian region after we cross the Black Sea, and after that, we can let the Bulgarians secure the region as we look elsewhere.
The Black Sea is a Russian lake, so our transports will not make it to their destination.
Now, I DO believe an attack across the Black Sea will work. Our only threat in the region is the dilapitaded 'Black Sea' fleet of the CCCP. Our stuka's could remove that threat if they ever came in range of a land base, and we could ensure our Italians bring a sizable fleet with them to protect the crossing.
Sucking Russia into Turkey may sound go; but they will not pull most of their army from Europe to take so insignificant parts of Turkey.
I don't think the Russian's would remove armies from the our Eastern border to take part in the operations in the south. Stalin would immedietly guess that our intentions are for him to weaken his border in preperation for an attack.
No, he will send his 'southern' armies and armies not located near our border.
2)Oil is more important than Russian Territory. After we have the oil we can then pour into Russia and crush them with help from our Japanese brothers. Once Egypt, Israel and Iraq are ours, it will take the Allies months to reach them.
Are you saying oil more important than Lebensraum?!? :laugh:
Anyway, the whole reason I suggest the sea brone landings across the black sea is for a variety of reasons.
a) It would be a daring tactic that would suprise our foes immensly!
b) It would give us direct access to the oil near the Black Sea.
c) It would draw the Russian armies out of Persia and away from the Black Sea oil. If we try to take the oil conventtionaly, we will get destroyed by superior Russian numbers and help from the allies.
d) India borders Persia borders the Oil. We must eliminate some of these threats. If we draw the troops out of Persia and into Turkey, then we cut off thier supply, by the time those troops cross back over to us or Allied armies march from India/ The Middle East to help, we will have secured the oil.
e) Would give amphibious landing exsperience to our troops which they could then use against england later.
f) If we invade the middle east, what's to prevent Russia from attacking us as our best units are far away from home? They will see our attack against Allied oil sources as a threat against them, and they will respond accordingly. The longer we wait, the more time Russia has to attack us first!
g) If we can destroy most of the Russian armies either on OUR territory (Poland) or on foriegn soil (Turkey) we can avoid many problems, ranging from partisans to local terrain knowledge to keeping our troops supplied. By eliminating thier armies near Poland and in the south, we will have almost a full YEAR to secure the oil before Russian reinforcements will arrive. I put no trust in the Japanese to actually attack Far-Eastern Russia, so those units will be free to come to us to attack.
3) When war with Russia does come, our first job is to destroy any port that the Allies can land supplies to help the Russians.
Isn't that going to be nigh on impossible? I mean, I agree with you totally. Keeping Amerikanisch goods out of the hands of the soviets will be a great bonus for us. But to do so we would need the Japanese to blockade Soviet ports, and I don't think they have the backbone nor the will to fight Russia.
4) Any Europian countries that have not joined the war yet should be pressured to join on our side, especially Portugal and Finland. They are useful to The Allies and Russians if they join the Allies.
Definetly. Gaining more allies would be useful. But sometimes, neutrality is good.
If we keep Portugal neutral, we don't have to guard that part of the Iberian Penninsula from invasion. If we can ally with Finland, I have another use for them.
When neutral, they keep Russia from attacking Norway. But if they join us, and the Russians DO attack Finland/ Norway, then that's just another place they will send there armies instead of to protect thier cities and oil!
5) If we have not taken the Channel Islands yet, we should do that; and if possible also take the Isle of Wight as that would be a major propaganda victory for us. If we control the Isle of Wight, it will be very difficult for the Allies to move in the Channel.
I think thier propaganda worth is more than thier strategic worth. But yes, we should take them (but I don't wish to waste many troops guarding them, though!)
In closing if Finland, Turkey and Portugal join our side, Japan joins the War and the Middle East is liberated from the British, we will have many more allies for our war on Russia.
Japan should join us, but they won't help agains't Russia. They have thier own problems (although Russia will still be forced to keep some units there to guard against them)
Middle Eastern oil is something we should take AFTER we get the Russian oil. Taking that oil opens us up for too many attacks, either by Russian's pre-empting us or by British troops attacking via India (And India does have a large number of troops, too!).
Our best chance is to destroy Stalin's western armies on our own turf, as quickly as possible, before seizing the oil and the important cities in the western parts of Russia.
Do this, and Russia will be doomed. Then we can turn our eyes to the Middle East.
And eventually the WORLD!
:devil:
:edit: The map (I need to stop doing these darn things!) shows the plan, with a kinda sorta order of events.
'Throw the switch, Igor!' 'Yesss...masterrr!'
whats going to hold the allies that are already in afrika from coming up the boot or the balkans and biteing us in the butt,or putting such a hold on that oil that well never get it if we get bogged down in mother russia.
it is a good idea though ,how about a mutal deffence pact with turkey "stage a russian attack" then we could move in anyway in the defense of turkey.i wouldnt weaken the front in poland to much though or make it look to easy.
has anyone heard off operation ulm or magnitogorsk?
any way the brits and amis first :smoke: sieg hiel :toast:
daemonofdecay
10 Dec 05, 22:27
Yeah, I still believe we should take out the Brits first too, hip.
Hoever, If we redirect sizable forces to Africa, Russia will jump us. I think our best bet now is either to try and divert some forces to Africa to finish the job there (and get Rommel and the excperienced Africa Korps back in time to invade Russia), or we try to invade England again (not a good prospect).
I wouldn't mind a amphibious landing in Palestine, though, and instead of going into Iraq for the oil, making a drive to the Suez, and we can pinch the British supply lines further.
BarcelonaBlom
12 Dec 05, 09:17
Catching up with everything.... ah thats a bloody shame, I thought we had the British....
muddaubber
14 Dec 05, 00:02
a) Do not attack the Balkans. We do not need the headache.
b) Reinforce Lybia and Algeria with Italian and Spanish troops. Keep the British and Americans as busy as possible for as long a possible. Withdrawl only when the delaying strategy is not worth the cost.
c) Post a minimal defensive force in France. No more than 9 or 10 weak divisions. If we are to survive we must destroy Russia and we need every available available.
c) Attack the Soviet Union Now. Do not wait for next year. They are at their weakest and we, even though we are hurting, are still stronger. The attack should concentrate on Leningrad. It's capture will remove an important reinforcement hex and might bring Sweden and Finland into the war and we will need their troops for our continued attack into Russia.
Note: with America in the war we have approximately 12 to 18 months of offensive operations capability left before we will be force on the strategic defensive for the duration. We started this mess and we must now take chances or we are finished!
i dont think leningrad is to important,more for the propaganda value.murmansk ,archangel,are better ports,moscow is the rail head every thing would be crippled.stalingrad controls the volga,baku(?)the oil fields
operation eisenhammer was directed at the blast furnaces at magnitgorsk (luftwaffe),ulm was projected at the electrical producing facilities(skorzeny) both planned in '44 designed to cripple the red armour production.
convince turkey they need us for protection against the bear.
palestine and the suez are good targets ,especially if we can interdict the allie supply line across the atlantic with uboats and bombers.we can keep enough back to hold the bear while get afrika.
how far would we actually get into russia during the winter they could just put in enough to slow us down while saving up thier strength for a counter attack in the spring.anybody think we can get russia in muddaubers year?do we really want another front
sieg hiel :toast:
muddaubber
16 Dec 05, 20:04
I believe that Leningrad is important because it is a supply point and a replacement center. It is also the gateway to Murmansk and Arkhanglesk.
If the Swede's and the Finn's come in with the fall of Leningrad then the extra troops can be used to take Murmansk and attack Arkhanglesk.
We will need the extra units if we hope to conquer Russia. We also need to take the replacement centers so that we can deny Russia the manpower she needs for her defense.
If the northern strategy is not acceptable then I would suggest a southern strategy concentrating on taking as many replacement centers as possible. Once you cripple the Red Army you can then choose which direction to take.
But I must emphasize that we need to attack now. Every week we delay Russia will become stronger and more difficult to defeat.
where are these replacement centers? if leningrad is a supply port we control who comes in and of the baltic.the mass of russias army is the peasants they need the trains to move them and supplies .the large cities are the industrial areas,they need the trains to move in the raw materials and to move the finished products out.they need ythe blast furnaces to produce steel.and the power plants for the machinery
we have how much oil for the wermacht with the afrikan oil we can do what we want when we want .with the sudan the north afrikan and mid east nations may decide to come over to us
id rather afrika for a secure front first we dont need the allies down there mucking around and getting a more secure foothold than they already have and getting ready to stab us in the belly
what shape is the luftwaffe and the uboat fleet in.considering that we are already at war whats wrong with the unrestricted sinking of merchant ships in ememy waters that maybe bound for maybe say russia if they arent her ships oh well if they are theyve been warned to stay out of hostile waters.
QUESTION TO THE GAME how would the ukrainians react to us if we behaved ourseves if we made it clear that our enemies wre the communists and not the people(when we went in we greated with flowers on the way along they picked up guns)
sieg hiel :toast:
daemonofdecay
23 Dec 05, 16:27
Another idea is this:
Why don't we divert our energy to building more industries? We need to be able to produce the tanks needed for our Panzerdivisions, and the small arms for our troops.
The Russian industry is not working at maximum speed or effeciency right now, but if we attack, it will kick into high gear.
We can't outproduce the USSR, but every armored division we have in the early months is worth more than double that number later!
And besides, will Russia attack first? I don't think Stalin will attack in the next year or so, but he will eventually.
I believe the secret to taking Russia is not in it's cities, but it's armies and leaders.
History has shown that Russia's greatest strength is it's vast amounts of land, and what is a city, but another piece of land? (Maybe in game terms it has some benefits, but I don't know of these!)
If we concentrate on destroying the Russian armies first and foremost, not even crazy Siberians could stop us!
...I still like my Black Sea Amphibious landing idea...*sniffle*
I disagree with the opinions about an invasion of USSR before we paralyze the western allies.Fighting on two fronts would bring us nothing but disaster.I think we have to focus on Afrika. Taking Suez must be the primary object in my opinion.
I think we should not attack the Balkans as long as they remained neutral. But we must never lessen our political pressure on Balkan states.
We have to force Turkey to join our cause by offering them some provinces that have major Turkish population in Northern Iraq. If they don't join us, we have to invade Turkey. But the Russians wouldn't like that as the Bosphorus is a historical Russian objective through the ages. They would never want the Bosphorus to be occupied by a strong country like Third Reich. Because this would trap the Russkies in Black Sea.So making a pact with them for sharing Turkey is almost impossible.
If we have Turkey by our side, we have to invade Cyprus. We have to prevent the Brits attacking our railway system from this island.
If we have Iran and Iraq by our side we can easily invade middle east and reach Suez.
Also we have to make a plan to invade Malta to secure our movement in Mediterranean.
Trying the Japan to attack Brits and Amis is a must i think.
But i am not so sure if we can succeed to bring South American states into war by our side.
Regards
Fatih
yes build up our industry,but we need to take afrika .1 for the oil.2.to kick the allies out.3.it might help persude the mid east to come over.
sieg hiel
KG_AirborneBob
27 Dec 05, 10:03
All points are good, the key is logistics!!. We must be able to throw our industrial might to production of divisions so we can thwart the Russians on the east. Oil is the life blood of our forces, stragegicaly and tactically. Securing the oil fields of the Balkans, and the middle east will drive our industrial capacity. We must develop a plan to secure these areas and protect them.
not only to more of the same ,but better development practices it would not be good to be stuck with mkIII's when we need IV's or V's,or 109's instead of 262's.
what brit possesion's can we bypass to let wither on the vine and which are nesessary?if we can get them out of n.afrika and take the suez with ,effective luftwaffe superiority and a little KM they wont be able to supply cyprus,malta etc,and maybe weaken brit support in the mideast(iran,iraq,india etc)
what about those silly little islands the azores,madeira,and the canaries?those might be good little points to interdict allied supply lines to n.afrika.id say chances were that if we dont they will.
sieg hiel :toast:
When are we going to see a map of the situation, meine Herrn?
Alone GreyWolf
02 Jan 06, 17:47
First of what I hope to be many posts. Great topic, wish I had found it earlier.
There's two veins I see as I read the previous posts.
1) How the Axis should react if we were redoing history. And,
2) How the Axis should react in a TOAW recreation of WWII.
Terms like hex and resupply center are functions of the game that while in reality had bearing on the outcome of the war, didn't really play into our forebearers decision-making process.
Here's my assessment of our options:
a) Capturing the Balkans isn't an important event since it doesn't achieve any of our Strategic goals (ie. defeating the Allies and conquering Europe) but rather is a Operational goal we can accomplish through support of Axis regional partners.
b) Conquering/securing Turkey's allegiance is an Operational goal that would help us encircle the Brits in Egypt and capture NAfrica.
c) Capturing NAfrica and the Suez Canal is another Operational goal that would support our Startegic plan, ensuring our logistical viability through the upcoming campaigns. This will effectively put the Med out of reach for the Allies and make Cyprus/Malta fall through attrition. All of which is noble, but secondary considerations.
d) Attacking Russia is a direct benefit to our Strategic goals.
Once Russia is out of the war (1941-1942) we can focus all our efforts on another English invasion (1943), secure that our eastern flank is safe.
There have been many developments since I was last here, I must say. I'd like to ask, in the event we invade Russia in the Winter, do we have sufficient stocks of Winter clothing and the necessary POL for the cold weather? I shouldn't like it very much if we had to ask our civilians to donate such clothing. Lest we be faced with shortages of natural resources we should develop synthetics as fast as we ever can.
Another point on this topic is that we will surely face massive human-wave assaults from the Russians. At the moment our Infantry have turnbolt rifles, machine pistols, and machine guns. The rifle is very good, in a marksman's hands it can deliver effective fire out to 1,000 metres or so. However gentlemen, one might well ask how often does Infantry fire at such ranges? Except for sharpshooters and snipers, not very often.
Our Infantry may well be outnumbered. In this case, it's questionable whether we will have enough machine-guns to stop massive Russian assaults, and the rate of fire from turnbolt Mauser K98k's won't be enough in that case. While the MP40 is good, it lacks range and stopping power, and in any case it was designed for trench and house clearing work in the main.
What I propose is that we put in hand the manufacture of a new Infantry weapon. We should take our 7.92 round but reduce this in length and powder charge. Around this cartride we will design a rifle capable of accurate repetition and controllable fully-automatic fire at short to medium ranges. Thus the Infantry will have the range they need, the rate of fire they need, and the necessary stopping power. Let us call this new concept the Sturm Gewehr, or in English, Assault Rifle.
Now you will recall gentlemen, that we have already introduced a new concept in war, that is to say, the General Purpose Machine Gun or GPMG, our MGs 34 and 42 to be precise. Let this be (very secretly) combined with the Assault Rifle and we will really show up any opposing forces. We will of course keep the K98k for sharpshooters and snipers, and may even consider developing a self-loading rifle in the full calibre for the former.
I have heard disturbing reports of a new Russian tank, the T34. This AFV is said to have a low profile, wide tracks to cope with the often boggy terrain of Russia, and better armour than our current tanks. Perhaps we had better look into this matter before we start. We shall also need better Anti Tank weapons than we currently have. Some of our current Anti-Tank Guns are so weak the Infantry refer to them as "Army Door Knockers". I would like to see the development of recoilless hand held Anti Tank weapons, if possible as many as will allow the deployment of one per Infantry Section at least.
This post is perhaps somewhat off-topic, but I post it anyway in the hope of giving you some points to ponder Gentlemen.
Casey
Engineer 1888
03 Jan 06, 16:51
1) North Africa and the Midle East need to fall soon. The longer we wait, the stronger they get and the harder it is to get the oil we need to keep our army moving. Stirring the Arabs up and getting them to revolt right when we land will be a big help; so that should be done before any attack is made.
2) War with Russia should be fast and decisive. If the Allies attack while we are bogged down in Russia, we will be destroyed. Thus all attacks should be made to drive the Russians away from their main cities. Murmansk and Arcangel need to be taken or have their ports disabled as soon as war starts. War in Russia must be done within 18 months of starting.
3) Japan needs to join the War and strike the Allies fast and hard. With Japan in the War, the Allies will be forced to commit many troops (that would otherwise be attacking us) to holding the Japanese. If possible they should directly invade US and Canadian territory. The North American forces will be tied down protecting their own turf and will be unable to help the British any more. Japan should also attack Russia with at least 2 or 3 corps to keep the Elite Siberian troops where they belong, in Siberia.
4) Diplomatic pressure should be put on any neutral countries in Europe to convince them to join the new masters of Europe, Us. The first country that refuses should be crushed in another show of power.
5) Find allies in the Americas to tie down more Allied troops and hopefully sieze some US territory.
6) A decision needs to be made on whether we attack the Midle East or Russia first.
1) North Africa and the Midle East need to fall soon. The longer we wait, the stronger they get and the harder it is to get the oil we need to keep our army moving. Stirring the Arabs up and getting them to revolt right when we land will be a big help; so that should be done before any attack is made.
2) War with Russia should be fast and decisive. If the Allies attack while we are bogged down in Russia, we will be destroyed. Thus all attacks should be made to drive the Russians away from their main cities. Murmansk and Arcangel need to be taken or have their ports disabled as soon as war starts. War in Russia must be done within 18 months of starting.
3) Japan needs to join the War and strike the Allies fast and hard. With Japan in the War, the Allies will be forced to commit many troops (that would otherwise be attacking us) to holding the Japanese. If possible they should directly invade US and Canadian territory. The North American forces will be tied down protecting their own turf and will be unable to help the British any more. Japan should also attack Russia with at least 2 or 3 corps to keep the Elite Siberian troops where they belong, in Siberia.
4) Diplomatic pressure should be put on any neutral countries in Europe to convince them to join the new masters of Europe, Us. The first country that refuses should be crushed in another show of power.
5) Find allies in the Americas to tie down more Allied troops and hopefully sieze some US territory.
6) A decision needs to be made on whether we attack the Midle East or Russia first.
I agree at all points.
We must first decide wheter attack USSR or Africa.
We need a poll I think.
Regards
Fatih
jasperdog3329
05 Jan 06, 14:32
Greetings all. I'm a long time forum participant with a focus on the ASL, Weapons of War, and Active History Alternative Timelines areas. I was able to devote some time over the holidays to getting caught up on the progress of this interesting project.
I don't have any experience with TOAW but my sense is that it takes into account strategic objectives, industrial capacity, logistics & supply, diplomacy, and combat. Combat seems to normally occur at the division or corps level, sometimes at the brigade or battalion level. Is there anything else that I should know about the simulation or game engine? Is there a science or development component or technology tree?
A pity about the failure of Operation Sealion; I thought that the Supreme Commander had pulled the chestnuts out of the fire with Phase II. I thought that the Royal Navy would have been harder hit when operating in the Channel in reach of the Luftwaffe as per their historical experience off Crete. I assume now that both our naval and air forces are severely depleted as a result of the operation. The Luftwaffe in particular I assume to be incapable of doing much more than supporting a single field army and providing homeland defence against Allied bombers.
Regarding future strategy my vote would be to put off a Russian invasion for now. We should attack throughout Africa leveraging our superior interior lines of communication (Spain, Gibraltar, France, Italy) to turn the Med into an Axis lake. Secure Malta, establish air and U-boat bases throughout the region including Sicily, and attack with land forces at a couple of points to envelop Allied forces in western or central North Africa and begin an offensive towards Egypt, the Suez and Middle East.
The objectives of the African/Med. foray must be to:
a) secure oil resources and secure transportation routes for same back to the Fatherland and;
b) occupy a flanking southern invasion jump-off point for the ultimate removal of the Communist menace to our East.
Invading Russia would not be in our best interests right now. As I have said before, lets turn the Med into an Axis lake and seize the oilfields of the Middle East before moving on to Russia. With Gibraltar and the Suez Canal in our hands we will be unstoppable.
afrika.weapon development.industrial development.persuasion of the nuetrals. isolation of the allies.discontent in the brit colonies.discontent in the ukraine,georgia and white russia.fear in the turks and finland of the hungry bear. A STRONG UNDEFEATABLE GERMANY
(so much for my rant)
sieg hiel :toast:
Another thing, I firmly against this idea to invade Turkey. Firstly, I am worried it might provoke the Russians into action. Secondly, Turkey is a mountainous country and if the Allies got troops in there we could become seriously bogged down. Why not make a crossing at Gibraltar? We have to be careful about how we do this now that our naval and air strenght is diminished.
Mantis has gone MIA. I am hoping that it was due to the holidays. Till things can be figured out; everybody should relax till word comes down from ACG. Note: I have no standing with ACG and this is done based on information I have recieved. Any further questions should be directed to ACG brass. Note 2: I am posting the information here so the Axis can be aware of the situation.
daemonofdecay
08 Jan 06, 18:48
Well, after reading this stuff, I have decided that I will support an attack on the Suez canal, hopefully to cut of the UK from resources in India and vice-versa.
I do have a few questions about the game system; does the game reflect diplomatic actions and industrial power, or is this reflected in how the players of the fame act?
I ask this because, if the Germans were to cut of India from England, might they be able to insight rebellion amongst the colonial populations of the UK?
But anyway, back to my point. Hopefully, if we take Africa from the UK, then we will have many benefits. First off, we will hopefully secure our Southern border (aka Italy) from invasion.
Also, we will secure the Meditteranian (sp?) and will cut off those British forces on the Islands. We might secure the right to attack through Spain at Gibraltar, or just conduct a blockade with some submarines.
Anyway other bonus to securing Africa is that we might force the Allies to conduct thier first invasions against us not in France, but in Africa.
If that's the case, we could supply a small number of forces in North Africa to delay thier advance (we will not be fighting a two fronted war there and will be able to supply them) while we attack Russia.
Who knows; if we remove the colonies in Africa from the UK, they might just seek peace (unlikely) or at least be demoralized.
Attacking Russia succesfully may be an impossability, so we need every bonus we can get before we attack them (or let them attack us, where the infastructure of eastern Europe (improved by us) may just give us the decisive advantage!
jasperdog3329
09 Jan 06, 10:43
We might secure the right to attack through Spain at Gibraltar, or just conduct a blockade with some submarines.
Spain is in the war on our side and we have already successfully attacked Gibraltar.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.