|
ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Who is going to play the game after 43??? (5/18/2004 7:18:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
quote:
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
quote:
The Axis could have won the war if not for bad luck and poor leadership.
I do not agree but there seem to be two general schools of thought on the alt-history/strategy game design philosophy. One of them assumes that the Allied performance in the ETO was close to optimal and that Axis performance could have been vastly better than it was. The other is that the Allies made just about every possible blunder that could be made and the Axis performance up until mid-1942 was as close to optimal as it could be. I am of the latter pov.
IMHO it was something in the middle.
The Germany (Axis power #1) never actually mobilized all resources for "total war" (and when they thought they did it in 1943 it was way way to late and too little).
quote:
quote:
1. If the Germans had reinforced the Africa Corps and taken the middle east oil fields in 1940/41
The Axis could not have reinforced the DAK even if they wanted to. They were unable to keep sufficent replacements and material flowing for the force that they projected. Increasing the size of the DAK would only have made it less mobile and shorter-lived.
I think that original author though of case where attack on Russia would not happen in summer of 1941 (or would not happen at all) and that all resources Germany have would be put exclusively against the British.
In that case the British would have very very very hard time in Mediterranean (and elsewhere)...
Now that is the "What If" scenario of all scenarios... :-)
quote:
quote:
2. If Barbarossa had gone off on time (Many thanks to the Italians for screwing this up and saving the world for democracy) and Moscow was captured in 1941.
The Germans weren't available in sufficient numbers at any time to take Moscow. Ever.
I think it is misconception to think that Balkans operations in 1941 (Greece and Yugoslavia) were major factor in postponing Barbarossa.
BTW, the Germans could have taken Moscow (if they choose different strategy and didn't pause for whole month in summer of 1941 in the center).
But the truth is that having Moscow would not mean winning the war.
The Germans made _HUGE_ blunders when deciding to go to war against Russia (and severely underestimated its army, man power reserves, industry, technology and people).
The very moment Germany attacked Russia it lost war.
The very same thing is with Japan - Japan lost war with attack on Pearl Harbor.
quote:
quote:
If the 6th Army had ignored Stalingrad and taken the Causcuses and the vital oil fields.
They'd have been cut off and isolated in August 1942 rather than November 1942.
Yes, 100% correct.
That whole 1942 southern adventure was idiotic in the first place...
quote:
quote:
If Hitler had not stopped the panzers at Dunkirk and the BEF was destroyed/captured.
That's a real legit alt-history. But let's put the blame where it belongs and stop pretending that the General Staff were a bunch of automata. The Wehrmacht stopped the advance (panzers were in great need of refit and resupply before an attempt could be made at Dunkirk to overwhelm the remnant BEF) and Goering promised he could put the BEF in the bag. And he almost did. There were just too many ships for the Luftwaffe to sink. Had the Kriegsmarine not been substantially ruined by the Norway campaign, the two together might have held the BEF in the bag long enough for the Wehrmacht to finish the job.
We have to remember situation in summer of 1940 at Dunkirk.
At that time the France was not yet beaten and conquered (although very badly shaken) - Hitler wanted his tanks for follow up operations in France.
Also, let us not forget that tanks at that time were rather fragile machines needing constant care and maintenance. The dashing German breakthrough via Ardennes towards sea took heavy took on panzer units...
quote:
quote:
If the US carriers had been in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th.
Would not have mattered in the slightest. The presence or absence of US CVs was a non-factor in Japanese operational planning through the critical first four months of 1942 when the extent of the perimeter was established. Even assuming you give the Japanese a walk-in at Midway and Guadalcanal, there's no where to go from there and the distance just stretches Japanese logistics even farther than it was already stretched.
The very moment Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the lost the war.
The only question was when.
If the war didn't end in 1945 it would end in 1946 or 1947.
It doesn't really matter... Japanese could have won many more battles than they historically had but, in the end, it would not matter... they were simply outmatched with USA human and material recourses...
quote:
quote:
If the Tone's catapult did not malfunction and the Japs located the US carriers first at Midway.
An old myth if there ever was one. If Tone's scout had flown its intended rather than its actual (historical, late) patrol mission, the Japanese would not have observed any USN vessels at all. In that event, Yorktown would not have been touched. Probably the result would be more Japanese screening vessels lost after the destruction of the four CVs.
I disagree with "mdiehl" here.
I believe that Japan could have (and should have) won the Midway battle and that had very bad luck.
But it doesn't really matter (see above)
The USA would not surrender of sue for peace if Midway fell (or Hawaii).
Jamamoto knew that and that the only way for Japan to win war was to enter Washington (that of course he knew was 100% impossible and he very well knew that war was lost when it began).
quote:
quote:
7. If the IJN didn't put out the stupid order about subs not "wasting" torpedoes on merchant ships (They were only supposed to attack warships)
There was no such order. The IJN doctrinal failure was in selecting patrol routes and missions for submarines, not in target selection once on their assigned patrols. It was probably the better chocie for Japan, since very few of their submarines had the range to operate where the strategic assets were until the US Marianas and Marshalls campaigns brought the US closer to Japan. It would not have mattered, however. Allied ASW was hyper effective after April 1943 anyhow, and few submarines, German or Japanese, stood much of a chance of survival on any given mission.
Again irrelevant IMHO.
Germans were unable to "strange" UK and Japan was never in position to even think of doing the same in Pacific.
quote:
quote:
If the Germans developed a 4 engine bomber. (The Ural bomber was cancelled in 1940)
If the Germans had put a 4-engined bomber into production, they'd have had 1/4 as many fighters. In that event, I suspect that the US strategic bombing campaign would have been an order of magnitude more effective in 1942-1943. Then, where would they go? The Germans could not project fighter cover over the UK (never mind the US or central Russia), so all the posited bombers would be meat pucks. You'd break the back of the Luftwaffe, permanently, some time in 1941-1942. And trying to engage the Allies in a strategic bombing campaign, matching them city ofr city and bomber for bomber, is like a featherweight trading body blows with Joe Louis.
If Germans didn't attack Russia or declare war with USA this might have helped them in combat with lone Britain - but that's another "what if" scenario (see above).
In historic sense it didn't matter at all (and that would even more lower the fighter production).
quote:
quote:
If the Germans hadn't stopped their jet program in 1940 (only to restart later)
Again, no difference. The ME262 was a complex tinkertoy and little more. Very fast. Very unreliable. Very short ranged. Very expensive. Very consumptive of strategic assets. If you're looking for something the Germans could have built more of to really make a difference, your best bet is the FW190. And pilots for same.
Me-262 was good aircraft and it could have been even better if the development wasn't stopped.
But historically it, again, didn't matter...
quote:
quote:
If the Luftwaffe hadn't changed from bombing the RAF bases to terror bombing of London (this started in retaliation to an errant bombing of Berlin by an RAF bomber).
The Luftwaffe shifted to London because they'd lost the daylight air battle over UK bases. It is true that the RAF was "on its last legs." What people fail to note is that at the time of the shift, Luftwaffe a/c were being shot down at a rate of 4 times UK ones, the Germans were losing pilots six or seven times as fast (because UK pilots shot down in the UK could fly again if they weren't killed in their plane), and the Luftwaffe fighter force was numerically equal to the UK one. In short, the RAF was panting, out of breath, bleeding and leaning on a crutch, but the Luftwaffe was on the ground, knocked out and hemhorraging in the dirt
Now this is incorrect.
Luftwaffe could have destroyed/paralyzed RAF but invasion of Britain was impossible so it, once more, didn't matter.
RAF was almost on its knees (there were enough planes but pilots were very exhausted and many experienced leaders were lost) when London attacks started.
It was said many time that Churchill lured Hitler to go after London knowing all of this...
quote:
quote:
We must not get caught up in the idea that we will always will becuase "God is on our side" or "We are destined to do so". We got lucky several times in WW2 and since then. We must not let our guard down just because we always have won. December 7th and September 11th have shown us this. Just because no one has kicked our ass doesn't mean that someone can't. Remember when Spain and Portugal ruled large parts of the world? Same for The Roman Empire, France, England, etc.
True. But no one COULD have kicked the Allies ass in WW2. The outcome of that war was determined largely by logistics and, to a lesser extent, by technology. In every arena of technology the western Allies fielded better equipment, by war's end, than the Germans, and in greater numbers, and by mid 1944 were tactically and operationally superior. Combine that with the fact that the US BEGAN the war with 65% of the Global Product, and it was only a matter of time. The primary difference between the US now and the US then is that we have the biggest economy, but we are distinctly inferior in production capability.
Like I wrote above both Germany and Japan lost the war when they attacked Russia and USA respectively.
Nothing could have saved them... it was just matter of time...
Leo "Apollo11"
P.S.
I will play as Japan and will play till the bitter end in WitP. My goal is to try to be historically better than what it was...
...Just a matter of time.... True, but that is what the "hypotheticals" are all about. How much time can the Axis player make the Allies take? If Japan did everything right after Pearl (and elected for another strike at Pearl on the dry docks and fuel depot's instead of heading back), won at Midway, nixed The Solomon campaign althogether, etc.... they may add as much as a year. If the Soviet winter of 41-42 had even been just an average winter and the Germans had not paused for that month they probably could have take Moscow (Stalin changed his mind a half-dozen times about abondoning the Kremlin before deciding to stay), but so what? Would the phychological impact on the Soviets been so huge as have a national morale collapse? In spite of losing Moscow, most of the industry had been moved to the Urals, they still had all the Siberian reinforcements and a large part of the Army still intact with a huge population base to still to draw on and lend lease ports still in Russian hands...... Maybe another 6 months? Maybe a year if they streamlined production on the best one or two designs of each weapon system.
But that's what the hypotheticals are all about and why many will choose to play beyond 1943. Can't "win" the war, but lasting until 1946 is intriguing enough to me. But need the ability to create some pretty non-historic situations in the scenario builder to do that, most likely.
|
|
|
|
