Posts made by 221B Baker Street

@Yavid:

@Gargantua:

You know what could be considered the WORST of the worst?

OPERATION PAPERCLIP.

Where scientists, in particular, Japanase Scientists ,who had mountains of data gathered on thousands of human experiments (chemical/biological weapon research), traded the data they gathered FOR THEIR FREEDOM.  Spending the rest of their lives in comfort.

Just saying…

+1

+2, especially considering the scientific value from this data and future scientific discoveries from these “scientists”  was quite minimal.  (with perhaps a few minor exceptions such as rocket scientist Werner Von Braun, though even this can be debated)  There might have been a case made for this had the scientists actually been necessary for the cold war effort, but in hindsight I do not believe so.

@ABWorsham:

I wonder how a Germany ruled by the Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm would have faired had WWI been just a large Balkan Conflict?

I think quite well.  The breakup of the Austrian-Hungary empire would probably have happened in which case I think Austria becomes very politically tied to Germany (perhaps it even becomes part of Germany).  Either way (or even without Austria) Germany would be the economic leader of Europe by the mid 1950’s.

@Nozdormu:

Question. Given this topic is about politics (one way or another) and I just saw a topic “Why politics are not allowed on this board”. Isn’t this topic a violation of the rules?

I had thought this was a topic of a significant event in Russia and Ukraine, slightly different than a political discussion.

The moderators are the sole judge if a topic is too political (it is impossible to completely isolate politics in any discussion of geopolitical events).  As they have not yet taken actions such as warnings to participants, thread locking or the like, then this thread still falls within the bounds of acceptable discussion.  If you still think this it too political, feel free to report it to the moderators for their consideration.

One of the big items you are overlooking is that the conversation here, at least so far, is reasoned discourse without any flaming, name-calling, etc.

If Putin is ever going to be able to rebuild the USSR (which I am sure he dreams about), he will have to re-absorb the breakaway republics such as Ukraine.  He already intimidates his neighbors in many ways (such as by witholding gas during the winter), but intimidation isn’t going to be enough to annex them…it just pushes these nations into NATO, the EU, and other alliances.  He will, at some point, need to use military force to annex the fallen soviet republics.

Why not start in the Crimea, a part of the Ukraine which is majority Russian (sort of like the Czech republic Sudetenland) where he could make a somewhat legitimate claim that it should be Russian anyway?

At that point in the war, the Allies had complete domination of the sky (except for the ME262, which was too little and too late).  Any German offensive was was doomed to stall and fail as soon as the weather permitted the allies to use this air power against the Germans (in fact, the Bulge offensive was stopped at Bastogne before the skies cleared).

When anything German that is moving gets shot, they can’t do anything, so no.  Any of these plans were doomed.

It seems clear to me that the choice of theatre depends on what one would hope to accomplish.

If I were seeking glory (assuming I would survive the conflict), as a citizen of the USA I would select Normandy, or maybe Bastogne.

If I were seeking to help enact victory (assuming my presence could somehow do this such), probably I would choose one of the turning points of the war.  The naval battle of Midway or Guadalcanal would be tempting…but I under this assumption I would choose the battle of Wake Island because it was possible for a US victory.  Had this happened, a naval turning point 6 months earlier than the battle of Midway, I presume the Pacific war could have ended 6 month sooner…though of course the necessary surrender of Japan might still have required the A-bomb.

If I were seeking to survive the war, I would definitely want something like the US coast guard defending the Panama canal.  Nice and quiet with no casualties.

I had to vote other as I think a good proximity fuse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze )could have made a tremendous difference in the naval battles the Japanese lost.  It certainly made a difference for the Americans.

Aequiteas,

Yes, it goes unappreciated by most but the Russian industrial cities east of the Urals were extremely important to the Russians.  If I, as Germany, had only one A-bomb, I might destroy Magnitogorsk (or as much as 15 kT will) instead of any other target (perhaps including even Moscow).  Most of the Russian steel was produced in this relatively small city…without which there would be very few Russian tanks…without which, I don’t see how the Russians win the war.

If I were Germany early in the war, say in 1942 then I use them to destroy Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad…if Russia is still fighting after that, use them against the remaining industrial cities in the East (Chelyabinsk, Magnitogorsk, etc.).  In either case, the point is to decisively win in the East (where the vast majority of the German war effort was focused…).  In 1943 or 1944 (after the tide of the war has turned) use them tactically such at the battle of Kursk to increase my defensive capacity, the idea being to bleed the Russians into capitulation.  In 1945, the war is lost so hit London, Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, New York and Washington DC (via submarine) to try to bluff a negotiated peace.

If Russia, then Berlin and tactical use on the east front.

If Japan, then the American West coast cities (Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco) the Panama Canal, Pearl Harbor, and probably Sidney, Australia.  For them, the war was against the USA and UK.

If the USA, then I would pretty much do what they did, unless I had the A-bomb earlier in the war in which case I would bomb the larger cities of Japan and Germany (Tokyo, Osaka, Berlin, etc.) instead of Hiroshima and tiny Nagasaki.

If Great Britain, I absolutely use them to destroy the U-boat pens and would probably bomb the larger cities and industrial areas of Germany with the remaining bombs.

@Herr:

Good point. But I’d say it would be a distinct advantage to know what to aim for

Which is how the Soviets were able to build them so quickly with a fraction of the resources available to the United States…

I, for one, am shocked to hear someone accuse Charlie Sheen of being a liar and a cheat. 

Surely his many ex-wives and mistresses all testify to his good character.

@Gargantua:

Germany should have committed half a million troops to Africa.  That would have got it done.

But Germany wasn’t able to supply the troops they had (150,000 IIRC).  These would have starved before reaching victory.

A better plan would have been Malta instead of Crete.

May 8, 1945 - VE day  8-)

Agree completely with the German V-2.  I read somewhere that the effort for this was nearly that as for the atomic bomb, but the results of the V-2 was virtually negligible.  In fact, the British were glad for the V-2 because they knew the money spent on each missile was money not spent on the things that really had an effect.

@italiansarecoming:

If an Indian IC is not the way to go then how does one slow the Japanese down?

If you say let Japan go wild and just mass shuck to russia to kill Germany will work before Japan is a threat. Will the allies be fast enough?

In my experience, the allies are indeed fast enough.

Japan indeed can get quite large (while at the same time Germany shrinks).  But not large enough to take Russia if the US/UK are also sending forces.  Usually in my games, Germany is deliberately contained to Europe (in a kill Germany first) and Japan is ignored, except for some minor pushbacks in North America or Russia or possibly Africa.  With the usual mass of troops in Karelia it is trivial to send some forces to Moscow, then Novo to push back at the Japanese.

Once Japan gains most of Asia, where else can they go?  Maybe a few ipcs in Australia, NZ, Hawaii…, but not enough to win the game and at a cost of troops that could be better utilized putting pressure on Russia.  Also the US can afford to send a few forces to re-take these if they want.

Maybe Africa, but then the US/UK are closer and will simply pump sufficient troops there to kick Japan out (again at the opportunity cost of lost pressure on Russia).

If Alaska, the US can easily take it back.

So Japan is constrained (in my opinion) by the fact that other than Asia (on the way to Russia), growth opportunities are limited by the distance from Japan and the opportunity cost of the need to put pressure on Russia (hoping a combined Germany/Japan push there can take Russia before Germany falls).

@BJCard:

@stroutqb22:

@BJCard:

99% of the time do NOT buy any complexes as the UK/USA.  If you buy in India it is a gift to Japan;  same with buying a US factory in China.  Just concentrate on a ‘kill Germany first’ strategy if you want to win.

I disagree i think a first turn complex in India is the only way that you can contain Japan.

If the Japanese player wants India they will get it.  Yes, a 1st turn IC will slow down Japan a bit, and make it more costly for them to take India, but they should be able to take it in turn 2 or 3; and then they will have the IC.  If this helps your strategy, then fine (I did say 99%…  :-D)

Building the IC in India also slows the UK down.  They delay construction of two transports by one turn, delays 5 infantry, or some combination.  This gives Germany an advantage in Russia or Africa.

My advice would be to do the basic transport of US/UK troops to Norway/Karelia to 1) protect Russia and 2) attack Germany.  Some of these forces can be moved to Moscow and Novo if necessary should the Japanese do well in Asia.

Do sink any German navy and kick Germany out of Africa as soon as possible, don’t let the axis get these ipcs.  It is nearly impossible for the axis to acheive economic victory without Africa, and very difficult for a conventional win without Germany holding africa for at least a good while (sufficient to acheive gains in Russia).

You can pretty much ignore Japan until Germany is destroyed.  If they go into Africa, kick them out (see above regarding ipcs).  If they attack North America, kick them out there as well (usually easily done).  If they are pushing hard on Moscow, divert sufficient troops from Karelia to push them back.

By doing the above, you should win as the allies (though of course the dice can always work against you).

Lastly, when you are very comfortably ahead, don’t forget to buy that Russian battleship for the Caspian sea 

@Gargantua:

@221B:

Is it time to transfer my cash from the bank to my mattress?�  Or a jar buried in the back yard?�  Yes, this is tongue in cheek, but in all seriousness, that this happened in Cyprus means it can happen here or really pretty much anywhere…

It’s time to invest a portion (10% to 25%) of your savings into metals, silver for example.

Loosely, the rule is that Silver is always worth Silver, which is always worth Silver.

I’ve thought about precious metals.  Gold, Silver…Lead  .

I think the best choice is to build useful skills and relationships.  These have value regardless of what happens to the monetary system.

Wittman,

To add to my previous post, consider the role of the Thatch weave fighter tactic in the Pacific:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thach_Weave

This short article is well worth reading, I’ll just provide one quote from it:

Marines flying Wildcats from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal also adopted the Thach Weave. The Japanese Zero pilots flying out of Rabaul were initially confounded by the tactic.
Saburō Sakai, the famous Japanese ace, relates their reaction to the Thach Weave when they encountered Guadalcanal Wildcats using it:[1]
For the first time Lt. Commander Tadashi Nakajima encountered what was to become a famous double-team maneuver on the part of the enemy. Two Wildcats jumped on the commander’s plane. He had no trouble in getting on the tail of an enemy fighter, but never had a chance to fire before the Grumman’s team-mate roared at him from the side. Nakajima was raging when he got back to Rabaul; he had been forced to dive and run for safety.

Here, a simple tactical change resulted in the Japanese zero being the superior fighter (due to its speed and manuverability) to being immediately inferior (due to its inability to sustain damage - the very thing that gave it speed) to the slower and less manuverable (but very durable) American fighters.

Is it time to transfer my cash from the bank to my mattress?  Or a jar buried in the back yard?  Yes, this is tongue in cheek, but in all seriousness, that this happened in Cyprus means it can happen here or really pretty much anywhere…

I think that a declaration of the most underrated weapon has an implicit assumption that WWII was essentially static in terms of weaponry and tactics.  This is most definitely not the case; both tactics and technology were constantly changing during the war such that I find it difficult to compare the value of individual weapons.

For example, lets take just fighter planes.  At the beginning of the war, either the German BF-109 or British Spitfighter was the best fighter (depending on who you ask).  However the BF-109 was replaced by the FW190 (generally considered superior to the BF109) and later by the incomparable ME262.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke_Wulf_Fw_190  :

When the Fw 190 started flying operationally over France in August 1941, it quickly proved itself to be superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force’s main front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V.[1] The 190 wrested air superiority away from the RAF until the introduction of the vastly improved Spitfire Mk. IX in July 1942 restored qualitative parity.[2] The Fw 190 made its air combat debut on the Eastern Front in November/December 1942; though Soviet pilots considered the Bf 109 the greater threat, the Fw 190 made a significant impact. The fighter and its pilots proved just as capable as the Bf 109 in aerial combat, and in the opinion of German pilots who flew both, provided increased firepower and manoeuvrability at low to medium altitude.

Which of these three fighters had the most impact?  In 1939, obviously the BF109.  In 1943, probably the FW190 (though there were still many BF109s being flown by Germany).  In March 1945, obviously the ME262 because any other German fighter would be quickly shot out of the sky.  In 1939 I would have to say the BF109 was essential for the Germans, but in 1945 the essential fighter was the ME262 (too bad for Germany they couldn’t make enough).

Tactics changed also.  In 1939, the British were fighting over southern England so that they tried to lengthen and prolong any dogfights as a tactic knowing that the German BF109 would have to leave or risk running out of fuel.  In 1945, allied fighters generally prefered to shoot at ME262 fighters when they were on the ground.  They commonly followed (when they could) the ME262 planes back to their runway and then proceeded to strafe it when it landed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262  :

Allied pilots soon found the only reliable way of dealing with the jets, as with the even faster Me 163 Komet rocket fighters, was to attack them on the ground and during takeoff or landing. Luftwaffe airfields identified as jet bases were frequently bombed by medium bombers, and Allied fighters patrolled over the fields to attack jets trying to land.

That said, I really like the answer of “horse”.

@Imperious:

where is the 2nd soviet factory going? They need 2.

(I kn ow I am late to this thread, but anyway…)

One option would be to put it in Russian held Manchuria (so Japan could potentially pick it off early).  I think this would further tilt the game towards the axis (though perhaps Russia would be better able to hold the far east in this case  :?  ).

But I think I would place it in Novo which best represents the actual movement of Russian industry during the war.

@Imperious:

How would you propose to alter:

Eastern Europe
Karelia
Ukraine
Caucasus
….

I feel the rest of the map are perfect, but i always never really liked the WW1 feel of EE and Karelia. It was too static.

I think the best way would be to split Karelia into two pieces and remove the factory.  This would give Germany the choice of either going north or south (though the US/UK would probably still be dumping forces to Norway, then the adjacent Russian territory).  Germany could opt to go North in hopes of cutting the US/UK from the USSR (unlikely unless the game was otherwise changed such as by a bid) or South and avoid (for a while) the allied troops.

@Gargantua:

@CWO:

@Col.:

Without Midway, would the US have been able to send the landing force to Guadalcanal when they did?

If I recall correctly, there wasn’t much carrier involvement (on either side) during the Guadalcanal campaign.�  **I think it was mainly surface surface ships that participated.**�  If so, then the results of Midway might not be significant on the course of Guadalcanal one way or the other.

Are you implying that the Carriers were submersible?:P

Absolutely they are submersible, the USA put plenty of Jap CVs underwater. They just don’t come back up very easily.

I went with other…but my thoughts are really a combination of two.

1. Oil, must have oil.  The Caucasus campaign had to happen as Germany needed the resources (especially oil) that Russia had.  But also,

2. eliminate the pockets and play defense…because Russia just had so many men to throw into offensive battles.  I read somewhere that in the North, where the German commanders had some leeway to give up land for a good defensive position, they were able to obtain a 6 to 1 loss ratio.  What might have been accomplished will full permission to do this?  This would have bleed the Russians white had Germany been able to do so over the whole front (which of course they would not have without the oil needed for industry).