Matrix Games Forums

New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: ETO

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Scenarios and Mods >> RE: ETO Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ETO - 10/23/2009 2:30:39 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: coxville

Can I say how much I am looking forward to this being available. partly because it sounds great anyway but mainly because I used to play Advanced Tactics and what made that so special was that each Mod that came out inspired others to make their own. The final Mods were so far ahead of the original scenarios that the latter felt quite shallow when you went back to play them. Don't get me wrong people will always say well I want that change but not the other one. great, that is what motivates them to find out how to Mod and then the variety of scenarios available grows. Any idea when us mere mortals will get a chance to see it?

Chris

AMEN!

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to coxville)
Post #: 31
RE: ETO - 10/23/2009 10:39:23 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Appleton, WI
Status: offline
I just read a good "what if" book and one of the ways the author suggested that Hitler could have won the war was to send more troops to N.Africa, really take out the Brits and then go after the Soviets through both the eastern front as well as from Turkey eliminating 70% of the Russian oil fields.

It sounds like this option is off the table if German troops, beyond what was historically sent to aid Italy, are not available. Please look into the possiblity of adding more Italian/German Africa troops so that you do not preclude this possible way to victory for the Axis. To me this is one of the more intriguing "what ifs" in WWII.

< Message edited by Hairog -- 10/23/2009 10:41:01 PM >

(in reply to coxville)
Post #: 32
RE: ETO - 10/23/2009 10:55:42 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
There was just one way they could have acomplished this and that was by removing the major part of the Italian army from NA.†With the Italians replaced by Germans the strength of the Axis in NA would have been much greater. But Mussolini wouldn't have had that. And then there was the supply problem. It was all but impossible to advance further than Cyrenaica with supply lines stretching from Tripoli, so it probably wouldn't have been done anyway.

You can try it, but it have to be with Italians.

< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 10/23/2009 10:56:47 PM >

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 33
RE: ETO - 10/24/2009 11:51:09 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Appleton, WI
Status: offline
I beg to differ. I think that with the full might and force of the German war machine focused on the Mediterranean and Malta, the Brits would have been overwhelmed pretty easily. This would have then set it up so that 70% of Russia's oil would have been destroyed of captured in the first couple of weeks of a delayed Barbarossa with Germany attacking from two fronts.

But it's your mod not mine and except for this point it looks very good. Keep up the great work.

The afore mentioned book by the way is "How Hitler Could Have Won WWII" by Bevin Alexander. A good read for all wargamers.

< Message edited by Hairog -- 10/24/2009 11:53:51 PM >

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 34
RE: ETO - 10/25/2009 3:35:32 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Logistical and political considerations precluded introducing larger numbers of German troops into NA, as Uxbridge says. They couldn't even properly supply what they sent there. He's doing what he can given the limitations of the game code to simulate that.

The only way around this, so far as I can tell, would be to either invade Turkey or bring it into the Axis and establish overland communications with the Middle East. Libya was just not a good base for a major Axis offensive.

If the Axis player wants a knockout blow against the British in the Med, he needs to look at Turkey and Spain, not Libya. That's a tough strategic choice and commitment for them to make given their concerns in the East, and rightly so.

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 35
RE: ETO - 10/25/2009 2:05:26 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Yes, as Flaviusx acknowledge, taking Egypt was more or less beyond the abilities of the Axis. This has no representation within the game system, why some manual restrictions is called upon. Thus the prohibition for German units in NA.

The mention of Turkey had me thinking. This country is often overlooked in most WWII games; the reason for that, obviously, is that it never was involved in the actual war, save some late face saving gestures.

Turkey is nor without strategic consideration, however. The British tried hard to get her into a UK-Greece-Yugoslavian leage after the Italian attack on Greece in 1940-41. She was also a tempting target for German representation, promising an alternative way of attacking Caucasus. The Turks themselves faced a three dimensional dillemma: side with the Western Allies, hoping for a friendly post-war partner; side with Germany and help destroy USSR and maybe recieve some concessions in areas formerly Ottoman where Hitler had no aspirations; or side with the USSR, the country they for geographical and historical reasons feared most, in some vague hope to be left alone after a Soviet victory. It all depended on which side would win, a question which answer fluctuated wildly as the years went on.

To reflect that Turkey very well  might have been involved in the war, I will add her to the list of countries that may be influenced by coup d'etats. These rules, as they stand now, look as follows:

1. Only Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iran and Iraq may ever be subjected for a coup d'etat attempt. This, on the other hand may happen as many times as possible up to the actual time when the country concerned joins an alliance. The results of these machinations are not necessarily to be seen as government overthrows, but rapid fluctuations in government sentiment.

2. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Spain may never be subjeted to diplomatic activity. They may only be delared war on.

3. Once USA joins the war, all diplomatic activity must cease, the only exception being declarations of war and activities concerning the countries given in case 1., that may be subjected to diplomacy up to the end of the game.



Suggestions within these general guidelines?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 36
RE: ETO - 10/25/2009 5:32:50 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
My sense is that Turkey would've avoided commitment to any side until one side was clearly winning the war and their entry too late to affect the issue one way or the other. That's more or less what they did in real life. I don't find the idea of Turkey throwing its lot with the Axis in 1940-1 very plausible, and putting that possibility into the game via coups is dubious. I'd tie it in to Axis vp level, and make the requirements sky high. (Something along the lines of Germany pushing as far east as the Arkangel-Astrakhan line.)

Turkey clung to its neutrality at least as hard as the Spanish did, harder in fact. (No Turkish equivalent to the Blue Division.) A system that puts Spain in the permanent neutral column and Turkey as a potential ally seems odd to me.


(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 37
RE: ETO - 10/25/2009 10:51:20 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Appleton, WI
Status: offline
"To reflect that Turkey very well might have been involved in the war, I will add her to the list of countries that may be influenced by coup d'etats. These rules, as they stand now, look as follows:"

Excellent idea. My suggestion that more German troops be allowed to fight in NA is predicated on the idea that Hitler is talked out of attacking Russia in 1941 and instead turns his sights on making the Mediterranean an Axis lake and moving through the Balkans taking Turkey and the oil in Saudi etc and setting themselves up for a two front war against Stalin in 1942. One front from the east focused on Moscow and the second through Turkey focused on the Russia's vulnerable and valuable oil fields.

The afore mentioned author and I agree...I think it would be unstoppable and Germany would have won WWII.

This can not happen is the Suez Canal is still in British hands. So my contention is that if Germany really wanted to send and supply 3 or 4 divisions to Libya they could have done it and done it pretty easily if the German High Command was focused on it. Malta was seen as the major problem with supply to NA. I really do believe that with all the forces that the Axis had at it's disposal in 1941, they could have suppressed the British navy with air power, the Italian fleet could have pounded the island back into the stone age and Axis forces could have walked from landing barge to victory. With the Luffies not focused on Barbarossa and only concerned with making the Med an Axis lake it would have happened. The Italian navy was no push over.

Anyway I would like to game it out to see and once and for all if we can take this idea off the table. I was hoping that maybe this game was the answer to finding out. Maybe not. Maybe I'll have to wait for the World in Flames or some yet to be created simulation masterpiece.

I love realistic "what if" scenarios and that's why I play historical simulations. So If it is possible I would like to have all realistic options available. I believe that putting and supplying 1 or 2 more German divisions in NA is realistic and was a very viable option. You may not think so and maybe we'll have to wait for another game with more realistic supply rules that makes it possible to find out. I just don't like to be limited by a kind of "house rule" solution if at all possible.

Again your project sounds fantastic and I can't wait to try it out.


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 38
RE: ETO - 10/25/2009 11:57:24 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
I'll probably keep the technical possibility to try to influence Turkey, then players can decide what the house rule should be.

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 39
RE: ETO - 10/26/2009 5:27:14 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
The Axis is probably better off spending those diplomatic points on Iraq and Persia and just invading Turkey if they are pursuing a Med strat. They have a better chance of flipping those countries. Turkey costs a ton of points to influence.

It's a pity the game doesn't distinguish between metropolitan Vichy France and its overseas posessions, I could see Syria going Axis in this situation as well.

An Axis invasion of Turkey could trigger a Soviet response, however. This might even be in the existing game events.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 40
RE: ETO - 10/26/2009 8:01:43 AM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Added Suez and made Kuwait into a port. Now possible to move convoys and troop transports to those places (tests pending).

Might even create South Africa as an intermediate landing point in case there will be supply issues with transported units.

< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 10/26/2009 8:02:17 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 41
RE: ETO - 10/26/2009 5:42:30 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 664
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
I think the german had 2 divisions and maybe one brigade in North Africa. There were at all 10 italians divisions also. Well this is what wikipedia says.

In another thread it speaks about Lybia. That he simply did not have the infrastructures to support such a large army already. Rommel already had serious supplies/fuel problems, at times less than 50% of his panzers were operationnal, if not worst.

Having more german divisions could have change the day? Maybe so, this is a "whatif". But, if your soldiers are starving and your panzers cannot move because they have no fuel, even if you have 22 divisions, you can end up unable to be very operationnal.

About Turkey, Turkey declared war on Germany on the side of the allies in 1945, when it was obvious Germany was losing the war.

About attacking Turkey, I suppose Germany would have been able to take Istanbul. But what if the turkish army decided to move on the east shore of the Bosphore and fight? The capital is Ankara, deep in the Anatolia, a hilly/mountenous region, a little like the Caucasus. I not do think the german panzers would have been of a great help in this region. Submitting Turkey could have been a long and tenuous campaign in itself, and pray that Stalin would not decide to help the turkish and send troops in Anatolia too.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 10/26/2009 7:31:53 PM >


_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 42
RE: ETO - 10/27/2009 3:56:02 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Have tried transporting units to Kuwait and Suez. Seems to work, so this change stays.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 43
RE: ETO - 10/27/2009 4:04:29 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I think the german had 2 divisions and maybe one brigade in North Africa. There were at all 10 italians divisions also. Well this is what wikipedia says.

In another thread it speaks about Lybia. That he simply did not have the infrastructures to support such a large army already. Rommel already had serious supplies/fuel problems, at times less than 50% of his panzers were operationnal, if not worst.

Having more german divisions could have change the day? Maybe so, this is a "whatif". But, if your soldiers are starving and your panzers cannot move because they have no fuel, even if you have 22 divisions, you can end up unable to be very operationnal.

About Turkey, Turkey declared war on Germany on the side of the allies in 1945, when it was obvious Germany was losing the war.

About attacking Turkey, I suppose Germany would have been able to take Istanbul. But what if the turkish army decided to move on the east shore of the Bosphore and fight? The capital is Ankara, deep in the Anatolia, a hilly/mountenous region, a little like the Caucasus. I not do think the german panzers would have been of a great help in this region. Submitting Turkey could have been a long and tenuous campaign in itself, and pray that Stalin would not decide to help the turkish and send troops in Anatolia too.


If Rommel had 20 German divisions in NA, Malta would surely be a problem. Anyway it was impossible logistics-wise.

Turkey will be very difficult to subdue, I think. But not impossible.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 44
RE: ETO - 10/27/2009 7:20:02 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Appleton, WI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Have tried transporting units to Kuwait and Suez. Seems to work, so this change stays.


Excellent option thank you.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the Axis being able to take Malta, turn the Med into an Axis lake and supply another 1 or even 2 German divisions in NA. All I'm asking for is the chance to try it out without being hindered by what I consider to be a "house rule".

By the way another historian agrees with my take on the subject. John Keegan wrote a short "what if" article entitled "How Hitler Could have Won the War, The Drive for the Middle East, 1941". If your not familiar with Mr. Keegan you should google him and read his books.

Go to this website if your interested in Keegan's article

http://www.unmuseum.org/hitlerwins.htm

A quote from a review of Bevin Alexander's book...

"Most Americans and British would like to think that Hitler was defeated by the tenacity and determination of the United States and the British Empire. Some may even concede that the Russians had something to do with it as well. But the fact of the matter is no one really defeated Hitler - Hitler defeated himself.

Throughout the war, Hitler had opportunities of sealing his victory. He really could have conquered the entire world. So what happened? That's what this book is about. And this book does a great job of pointing out where Hitler messed up and what could have happened if he had chosen a different path.

Find out what would have happened if Hitler had: Finished off England from the start.
- Given Rommel the troops he requested in North Africa.
- Waited to attack Russia.
- Conquered the Middle East.
- And many other unnerving possibilities."









(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 45
RE: ETO - 10/27/2009 8:00:51 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Well, I think we could agree to disagree on this one.

When it comes to books and articles, I have myself written a book about this. During the year I did that, I spent hours on end studying figures regarding Rommel's supply problem. I'm therefore unshakeable when it comes to this. But since I needed about 30 to 40 pages in the book to describe this issue alone, I will not try to re-do it here.

When it comes to home rules, however; you can simply disregard this one and play as you see fit. No problem.

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 46
RE: ETO - 10/27/2009 8:23:02 PM   
Leeds

 

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/5/2003
Status: offline
Is this mod available for download?

Would love to try it out!

Thanks

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 47
RE: ETO - 10/27/2009 8:35:33 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Not yet. I never seem to be finished with it.

(in reply to Leeds)
Post #: 48
RE: ETO - 10/28/2009 3:29:25 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Appleton, WI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Well, I think we could agree to disagree on this one.

When it comes to books and articles, I have myself written a book about this. During the year I did that, I spent hours on end studying figures regarding Rommel's supply problem. I'm therefore unshakeable when it comes to this. But since I needed about 30 to 40 pages in the book to describe this issue alone, I will not try to re-do it here.

When it comes to home rules, however; you can simply disregard this one and play as you see fit. No problem.


I don't mean to beat a dead horse but is your book still in print and second is it in English? It sounds like something I would love to read.

Just a few more questions if I may? Did you analysis come to the conclusion that there is no way the Axis could have taken Malta in 1941? Second if they did take Malta could they not have supplied Rommel properly with air cover from the Luftwaffe and the Italian Navy?

This has always been a big "what if" for me as I guess it has been for you. I don't know why I'm so fascinated with this idea of Hitler going through the Mideast to back door Russia. Maybe I was an Italian soldier in NA in a past life or something...but wait I'm also fascinated by the P38-Lightning.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 49
RE: ETO - 10/28/2009 3:59:21 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6375
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Hairog, check out Martin van Creveld's Supplying War. (Which Uxbridge here used as a reference.) It's pretty much the final word on this subject. (The chapter on allied logistics in 1944 is also extremely good reading.)


(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 50
RE: ETO - 10/28/2009 10:06:44 AM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Well, I think we could agree to disagree on this one.

When it comes to books and articles, I have myself written a book about this. During the year I did that, I spent hours on end studying figures regarding Rommel's supply problem. I'm therefore unshakeable when it comes to this. But since I needed about 30 to 40 pages in the book to describe this issue alone, I will not try to re-do it here.

When it comes to home rules, however; you can simply disregard this one and play as you see fit. No problem.


I don't mean to beat a dead horse but is your book still in print and second is it in English? It sounds like something I would love to read.

Just a few more questions if I may? Did you analysis come to the conclusion that there is no way the Axis could have taken Malta in 1941? Second if they did take Malta could they not have supplied Rommel properly with air cover from the Luftwaffe and the Italian Navy?

This has always been a big "what if" for me as I guess it has been for you. I don't know why I'm so fascinated with this idea of Hitler going through the Mideast to back door Russia. Maybe I was an Italian soldier in NA in a past life or something...but wait I'm also fascinated by the P38-Lightning.


No, the book is in Swedish only, and as of now, there's no indication of it ever being otherwise. Casemate has published some of my/our works. If you send them a mail asking if they have plans for a translation, they might take the hint.

There's a little about the creation of the book here: Malta. Use Google translate. Not much about the book's contents, but maybe of some interest. Otherwise I also recommend van Creeveld.

When it comes to your questions, the answers is (1) Yes, they could, and (2) No, they couldn't. Itís really tricky to explain everything about NA, because every answer leads to a new question. But I will take some time here to make a crude example of the entire dilemma.

Letís call in an imaginary mailman to help us. This mailman is supposed to deliver 4 parcels to 4 adresses each day (each adress representing a stretch of distance that the supply units have to travel). The recievers of these parcels has their houses in a such a way that he has to walk in one straight direction to deliver them (NA coastal road), and then head back home in the opposite, straight direction. Therefore, thereís no way he can shorten his path by altering the route.

Above this, he has to eat 10 apples a day (troop supplies), lest he will die. So he buys apples (arms, ammo, vehicles, fuel, food, water and spare parts) from the local grocery (Italy), which in turn have to deliver them to his house (Tripoli).

To make the entire work more difficult, we have a number of angry dogs in the mailmanís neighbourhood (Malta air and naval units), that always chase the grocery delivery boy, causing some of the apples to get lost en route.


Now letís first state some facts that canít be altered:

1. The grocery (Italian outgoing ports) has an upper limit of 40 apples

2. The door at the mailmanís house (recieving ports in NA, foremost Tripoli) has an upper limit of 15 apples

3. The mailman has to eat 2 apples each morning at home (Italian population and Axis service personel in NA) or he will die

4. During his work, the mailman traverse 4 suburban areas, fourth and back, thus he has to traverse all areas, even the last one, twice (areas represent: stretches Tripoli to Sirte/el Agheila; Sirte/el Agheila to Benghazi; Benghazi to Bardia; Bardia to el Alamein)

5. The mailman has to eat 2 apples for each suburban area he traverses, 1 apple in each direction, during his work (supplies to the troops) or he will die

6. The mailmanís carrying bag may only take as many as 5 apples (the Axis road transport capacity in NA; it may not be increased without deflating Barbarossa 1941 or 1942)


7. The angry dogs will take a number of apples each day. Contrary to all six points above, this amount of damage will vary.



So, letís get cracking. First of all, the mailman needs 10 apples a day to survive. The grocery can give him 40, so thereís no problem here. But then he may only recieve 15 at his home. No sweat! This is still 5 more than he can eat. So the grocery sends him 15 apples a day just to make sure.

Now, when trying to deliver, the delivery boy is attacked by the dogs, which takes 3 apples a day from him. This is serious, isnít it? Why, not really. The mailman still needs only ten apples; so his stock will rise with 2 each day, despite the menacing creatures.

Now the mailman gets ready to do his work, and this is where the problem starts. He eats his 2 morning apples, finding them tasty and nutritious. Then he packs 5 apples in his bag and happily goes to work. Regretably, having delivered the 4 parcels and turning back, the mailman finds himself without apples when homebound in area 3, where he falls to the pavement, stone dead. Is this true?

No, it didnít really happen this way. The mailman was of the smarter sort. He realized that he would need apples to his home journey as well, and stopped in the second area, only delivering to the first 2 adresses. This action saves him. But he hasnít been able to fulfill his job. The mailmanís name was Rommel and he never managed to deliver to this fourth adress called el Alamein.


Well, letís use the above dilemma and change some of the settings. The facts, except 7. must remain the same.

1. First we ask the question: did Malta ruin Rommelís campaign in NA. No it didnít. He had his 10 apples and more than that.

2. Could Malta have ruined Rommelís campaign in NA if the loss of apples were higher? Yes, if it had taken more than 5 apples a day, it would have ruined it, regardless of other things.

3. Would Rommelís situation have improved if Malta hadnít been? No, he had his 10 apples and couldnít eat more.

4. Suppose there were 2 mailmen (doubling number of German troops); would that have helped? No, it wouldnít. The door limit alone would have seen one of the mailmen dead.

5. if we donít double them, but increase the first mailman slightly in size; letís say making him 1,2 times of a mailman, could he then had made it? No, he still only had the capacity for 5 apples in his bag, so he could still only reach 2 adresses, and barely that since he now had to eat 2,4 apples for each adress.


This is only a very rough example of the the supply problems facing the Germans, but in essence it was the dilemma of NA. Think it through a number of times.


Thatís for the desert campaign; why you have an interest in P-38s, I can supply you with no psychological explanation.


< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 10/28/2009 11:34:16 AM >

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 51
RE: ETO - 10/28/2009 7:29:10 PM   
Hairog


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Appleton, WI
Status: offline
Excellent post Uxbridge thank you so much and I see and I concede the over whelming logic of your points

... except for the caveat you offered in number 6.

I believe that this point is the key to the matter.

"6. The mailmanís carrying bag may only take as many as 5 apples (the Axis road transport capacity in NA; it may not be increased without deflating Barbarossa 1941 - 1942)."

What if there was no Barbarossa in 1941? That's a huge "but" to this "what if". I agree Barbarossa and winning NA in 1941 could not be done as you pointed out so well. What I and the authors I have sited want to explore is...
1. if Hitler had forgone the attack on the Soviet empire in 1941?
2. Could Rommel have been given the tools he needed to win?
3. Could the axis hoards have rolled through the Balkans/Turkey and been ready for a two front Barbarossa in 1942?

That to me is the great "what if" of WWII.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 52
RE: ETO - 10/28/2009 8:29:06 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Won't comment on the Turkey issue; haven't studied that. But I think that the railroads running into this country is totally inadequate to sustain an operation of this size. But I wouldn't really know.

The Italians had about 7000 transport vehicles in NA. To this the Germans transported about 3000 more to NA. About a third of these were constantly in the repair shops. After Crusader, where Rommel lost a number of vehicles, he demanded 8000 new from Europe, but this request was flatly turned down. There were negitiations to move a couple of thousand French vehicles from Vichy-held NA, but I don't think more than 900 were ever delivered (taken entirely from memory).

Given time, maybe Rommel could have had his vehicles. But it's far from certain. The Axis stocks of fuel was going down. Regia Marina could hardly sail because of lack of fuel oil, so the Italian navy couldn't operate. If Regia Marina made a few sorties, the entire transport system to Tripoli would have been halted. Assume, given an extra year to prepare, Rommel had taken Alexandria. Then maybe another half a year before the Germans had found the means to take the oil back to Europe, refine it, have all the vehicles moved to NA earlier back over the Med†and be ready to launch Barbarossa. Then they would have lost several years to USSR, USA and UK to rearm and strengthen their forces. And if Rommel would have struck north, through the Levant into Caucasus, he would have faced supply conditions possibly even more attrocious than those facing him in NA.

Nope, if Hitler wanted to have USSR, he would never get a better chance than 1941.


(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 53
RE: ETO - 10/29/2009 12:51:40 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Appleton, WI
Status: offline
Very clear and concise. Thank you very much for your time and effort. This was a great discussion for me and I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 54
RE: ETO - 10/29/2009 11:10:36 PM   
Tomokatu


Posts: 473
Joined: 2/27/2006
Status: offline
A great discussion for me to lurk and observe, too.
Thank you for all your research Uxbridge, and for sharing with us.

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 55
RE: ETO - 10/29/2009 11:29:00 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
You're welcome.

(in reply to Tomokatu)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Scenarios and Mods >> RE: ETO Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.107