Posts made by 221B Baker Street

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).

While they probably would never fight it out directly against each other, I think that the submarines of that era could be compared to each other in terms of how well they did (and how well they potentially could have) against merchant marine ships.

I’d have to place them in this order with regards to their potential:

1. Japan
2. Germany
3. US
4. UK
5. Italy

Of course, the Japanese squandered the potential of their subs by using them to attack warships, rather than merchant ships.  So in order of actual performance, I’d say this order:

1. US (Japan was devastated by lack of supplies)
2. Germany
3. UK
4. Italy
5. Japan.

Part of the reason for my placing Germany below the US is because the allies, particularly the British developed effective defenses which the Japanese did not (and the Germans did not need to as they were a continental power).  Not sure where to place Russia, but since (like Germany) she is a continental power, there was very little, if any, efforts regarding submarines that I am aware of.

I’d also like to point out that Germany had some very interesting submarine ideas on their drawing boards, but either chose not to (or were unable to) develop these in any meaningful fashion.

Thoughts?

@Red:

First, let’s review the scenario:

From ABWorsham’s original listing of the contenders:

Let’s say for contest infomation, the showdown will take play in Caribbean. Ships will start 35 miles apart and can use all technologly at hand, for example Radar.

I’ll expand on this somewhat.  Whether the battle is fought at night or in the day could make a big difference.  My opinion is that the vastly superior radar of the Missouri makes a daylight contest the most equal.  At night the Yamato might as well be a boxer blindfolded in the ring against an opponent of similar (if not equal) physical strength.  The Imperial Japanese Navy had excellent night fighting skills, but this was due to employing the best torpedoes in the world (a weapon of destroyers and cruiser, not BB’s.)  Their nightfighting prowess did not lie in long range gun duels where they performed surprisingly poorly.  Without radar, nightfighting would likely favor the IJN substantially, with radar it favors the USN heavily.

Now if I were in the Missouri, and detected the Yamato within a few hours of sunset (assume they both find the other at the same time), I would maintain the separation until night fall–and the relative speed of the Missouri would make that a trivial effort.  Radar gunnery will own the night.

So let’s also say that the battle begins at dawn of sometime before late afternoon so that the battle occurs primarily during daylight hours.
…

If I were the captain of the Missouri and spotted the Yamato even at dawn, why not simply shadow her for 12+ hours until nightfall?  With the superior speed of the Missouri on the open ocean with clear skies this is a trivial matter.   Then rip her apart when she is at her weakest.  There would have to be some kind of need (to protect transport ships?) before I would knowingly engage a battle on perhaps 60/40 (or would it be 80/20?) odds when by simply waiting a while I can engage on terms of 95/5 or better odds.

@KurtGodel7:

There have been some very good responses in this thread!
… it’s possible that an anti-war movement could have had significant effects on the subsequent course of American foreign policy. A series of lightning victories would make FDR look weak and inept; potentially losing him some of his support in the South. But if the anti-war movement were to succeed in getting the U.S. out of its war with Japan, it would be necessary for Japan to keep making FDR’s war strategy look weak and ineffectual for many years. The anti-war movement would need those years to build up momentum and political force. America’s industrial capacity was great enough that the anti-war movement would not have been given those years. Additionally, FDR was much more interested in destroying fascism than LBJ was in destroying communism. It is impossible to imagine FDR using Vietnam-era weak half-measures in a war against Japan. History shows that FDR and Truman were willing to do whatever was necessary to obtain Japan’s unconditional surrender, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets.

I think your analysis is very sound.  I would add, however, that the Japanese atrocities in China (such as the rape of Nanking) along with various German atrocities (though the Holocaust itself would not be publicly known until the end of the war) would further diminish or even prevent entirely any anti-war movement.

Instead of creating and nurturing an antiwar movement, I think a better option for the Axis would have been to foster the isolationist movement which was quite powerful in American politics even as late as 1940.  Even this would have been quite difficult for them to do so however because the British (by destroying all undersea communication cables to Europe) controlled most of the news media (except a small trickle via wireless - Axis Sally) and therefore was better able to shape American public opinion.  Japan was in no better position as American sympathies were towards the Chinese, and Japan was clearly the aggressor…and Tokyo Rose did not change American public opinion.

Blitzkreig depended on having air superiority more than having superior tanks.  Germany had this in 1939 to 1942.  Germany did not have this in 1943 to 1945.  Therefore Germany was able to conduct large-scale offensive actions early in the war, but could only be defensive late in the war.

While the tanks are very important (especially when poor weather grounds the planes), the tanks and troops do not move when being attacked from the air.  They also do not move without fuel which may be cut off by airpower.  They also do not move when they do not have sufficient replacement parts as the factories have been destroyed by bombing.  Consider carefully the battle of the bulge…it was good weather more than anything else which stopped the Germans and saved the allied holdout at Bastogne since the allies were then able to resume aerial attacks.

To regain the initiative, yes Germany needed superior tanks, but also needed large numbers of the ME-262 planes and trained pilots for them, which it was unable to produce in sufficient quantities to alter the air war.

I like different scenarios, might try one if I can find time and players.  Have a game coming up, but I think its only going to be normal rules due to the people there.

Maybe its on your site and I missed it, but one alternative I have used when there are six players (rather than opening two boards for two simultaneous games) is to split the USA down the middle.  Take the Eastern USA as one player with everything east of mid-North America, Western USA with everything east.  The Western USA forces can be identified with a marker.  The order of play would be USSR, Germany, UK, Japan, USE, USW.  All other items stay the same.

It difficult enough for the axis to win as 2 vs. 3.  But  1 vs. 3 is much harder…
sounds like a fun game though, which is what is important!

USA - who wouldn’t want to have that industrial backing such that you had at your disposal more military equipment and supplies than the entire axis combined?  (for that matter, more than the USSR and GB combined also).

The strategy would be simple.  Stay the course the war took, then after Germany is defeated in May 1945, turn Patton loose on the USSR (after the titanic struggle with Germany, Russia would/did have a shortage of manpower).  This would be the hardest part as the USSR at the end of the war was the largest potential enemy.

With the USA on a war economy, don’t make the same mistakes Germany made: provide winter clothes for your soldiers and plan a defensive line winter 45-46 somewhere in East Europe.  Possibly start a second front in the Caucasus via Turkey/Iran but avoid Vladivostok as there is nothing significant there and is too close to the Japanese armies tied down in China.  Take the USSR out of the war over the course of 1946-47 or longer if necessary.  Preach (and deliver) liberation to the Ukranians, Baltic nations, Georgians, Armenians, etc. so that they turn against Stalin.  Some freedom for these nations would be acceptable to the USA provided they remain allies, and would probably be acceptable to them provided they had some level of self governance (and no purges).  Strat bomb the Russian oilfields in the Caucasus, the industrial production centers in the Urals and cut the transportation facilities via airpower.  With both a very significant production advantage and technology advantage, Russia should be beatable (despite the USSR advantage in espionage and manpower) with patience and persistence.

Use atomic weapons in Moscow instead of Hiroshima if necessary as by 1945 Japan was like a bull in the barn.  You had Japan where you wanted it but couldn’t do anything to them (at least not without a huge fight in an invasion).  So let Japan wither by a blockade from your Navy while the bulk of your forces (including atomic) take over Russia.  If Russia and Japan produce and alliance, simply sever the trans-Siberian railroad via strategic bombing from China so that they are incapable of helping each other( which would primarily be via oil and Russian raw materials to Japanese held factories in Manchuria).

After Russia is out, finish off Japan.  That only leaves a depleted and exhausted Great Britain, dependent on the USA for everything, which should then be easy pickings.  The promise of internal self-governing to the Middle East, India, and other parts of the British empire might play out much like in Russia.  Canada and Australia would be more difficult than the depleted GB…but at a small fraction of the size of the USA, these nations would not be a problem either.

Then there is the other side of the war, the Pacific theater.  I don’t think any events in Europe regarding Hitler (or even Churchill) would have affected the decision by Japan to annex Manchuria in 1931, China proper (at least as much as they could get) in 1937, and then to attempt the quick strike at Pearl along with the dash to the oil-rich Dutch East Indies in 1941.

WWII, at least in the Pacific, was pretty much going to happen regardless of events in Europe.  Considering the culture of the Japanese (essentially controlled by the military leaders) at the time, I don’t think the change of any single person in Japan (even the emperor considering the Japanese military could and did replace emperors when convenient for them) could have altered this course.

The fact that she states she knew nothing of the holocaust leads me to suspect everything else she says is biased.  How is it possible, other than willful blindness, to not understand the fate of the jews?

Terrific read indeed, thanks for the link!

I took the question to be asking about specific armies, not nationalities…

Sadly, I do not see any excellent armies or great leadership in all WWI.  Technology had made all tactics obsolete and the generals were unable to adapt.  As a result, it was a continental wide series of trenches where men died and suffered by the millions simply rotting in the trenches waiting for the order to outrun the machine gunners fire through the barb wire and minefields of no mans land.    :cry:

Perhaps the best of the worst was the armies under General Ludendorff in the German spring offensive of 1918.

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

After being static for years, the Germans gained a whopping 60 km (40 miles) - an amazing advance at the time - and were then actually able to shell Paris.  This was the movement of any significant size in years on the Western front.

BUT-- this offensive badly stretched German supply lines, exhausted them with losses they were unable to sustain, and quite possibly resulted in the allied hundred days offensive and collapse of the central powers.  So maybe this was the worst of the worst?

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

That I am unable to decide if this was the best or the worst says a lot about WWI, where even the best armies and Generals were a failure…

Here is what I scored:

You Scored as British and the Commonwealth

Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.

British and the Commonwealth
81%
France, Free French and the Resistance
81%
Poland
75%
Germany
63%
United States
56%
Finland
44%
Italy
38%
Japan
38%
Soviet Union
25%

Indeed that was an amazing story of an amazing woman, don’t let anyone tell you the French do not fight.  It also goes to show that while war brings out the worst in men and women it also brings out the best.  Had there been no war, her life would probably have been much more ordinary.

Its tempting to think a Japanese thrust in the East could have enabled an axis defeat of the Russians, and maybe this would have been possible as the margin of victory by the Russians was slim.  Certainly the Germans in 1944-45 would have wondered what might have been.

However I have to agree with IL…suppose Stalin does nothing but delaying tactics and guerrilla warfare in the east while dealing with the Germans.  He has a continent sized landmass (superimpose Europe and/or Australia on top of Russia sometime - modern day Russia is more than twice the size of Australia) of essentially useless territory he can easily cede to the Japanese without losing anything he needs, and he could recover this territory at his convenience after defeating the Germans. The valuable territory in Soviet Russia was the Ukraine, the industrial west, the Caucasus, and the Urals.  Siberia and east had little value at the time despite the vast territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Russia#Area_and_boundaries
(note Soviet Russia was larger than todays Russia, due to the independence of some former Soviet republics)

Not that the Japanese would have been capable of holding this vast territory and China at the same time. They couldn’t even hold China by itself despite a vast technology advantage (which they did not have against the Russians) and the Chinese civil war happening at the same time, as Chang Kai Shek had his capital at Chongquin for the duration of the war and Mao engaged in guerrilla warfare.

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

Read the essays, but I would say the following:

Forget any IC’s, two transports cost the same but can deliver more  infantry with added flexibility and some defensive capability (and cannot be strat bombed).  Its difficult to argue that ICs are beneficial to anyone though it can be used in conjunction with some strategic ideas…

As Japan you should have the number of transports necessary to ship a full complement of infantry from the main islands each round.  That, along with at least one capital ship (BB or CV) will make it too costly for the allies to attack your navy…a destroyed fighter will cost them 12 ipcs compared to a sunk transport costing only 8 ipcs.

That said, the game is not even and with evenly matched players who have some experience the allies should win most of the time (90%).  So don’t worry if you lose, you really should expect it as the axis.