Worth pointing out that the Turn 1 UK invasion is feasible (using the Long Range research) only with the box rules.  If you’re using LHTR (where weapon techs don’t become active until following turn), that strategy is out.

That said, before our group starting using LHTR, the Turn 1 UK invasion was tried once.  It worked, but UK was able to come back in on UK1 with the Canada tank (only 1 Ger ground unit had survived the assault).  They still got their income for Turn 1, and had lost only their initial money.  So, it wound up being a good IPC hit for the Axis (Germany got UK’s 30 initial IPC + income for UK on G1, while UK lost their UK1 buy), but lost their air force and their G1 ground unit buy in the bargain.  Germany used their stack of 80ish IPCs on G2 to replenish Luftwaffe (2 or 3 fighters) and a horde of ground units to send vs Russia.  Axis DID wind up winning the game by crushing Russia, but it wasn’t quite the inevitable victory as earlier suggested in this thread.

Since adopting LHTR, no one in our group has tried a G2 UK invasion…but I probably will next time I draw the Huns, just to see how it works out.

I think the answer to the OP’s question is yes, and ncsc is on the money about timing.  Just keep in mind that the troops you’re sending against Alaska/WCanada are troops you’re NOT sending toward Russia.  I kinda prefer keeping pressure up in the drive toward Moscow myself.

There’s a related thread on this forum: “The Big Gulp”.  It lays out a strat actually quite similar to that proposed by OP.  I used it in a recent game and it worked pretty decently.  You can put a majority of effort toward the Pacific advance, while still sending enough toward Europe to keep up some pressure on Germany.  The key is to avoid direct combat with Japanese fleet; let the defense advantages of your CV and its embarked wings work for you.  Island-hop for IPCs (even if you lose your Pearl Harbor fleet, you can take Borneo as early as US3), and make the Japanese fleet come to you.  Sure, you’ll lose, but you’ll take down some Japanese ships/aircraft in the process (probably even a CV)….and if you can get Japan into a naval arms race, you and Japan both know that’s a game the US will ultimately win.

So, Japan is faced with simply ignoring your advance (which will get expensive once you start taking territories like Borneo, East Indies, Philippines, and even FIC), or coming after you and risking aircraft and capital ships; losses he’ll have to replace.  Either way, that takes IPCs away from his mainland advance against Russia.

My understanding is that BBs got the 2-hit capability in A&AR precisely so that they wouldn’t be so vulnerable to submarines.

I’m ok with that as far as it goes…what annoys me a little is that it makes no sense that a BB would defend on a “4” vs subs.  BBs had no sonar, no embarked aircraft, no ASW weapons.  I just don’t see that BB (or CVs w/o aircraft) should get their good defense rolls vs subs.

We experimented in our group with a house rule that CV/BB, when attacked by subs ONLY (or if sub was only remaining attacking unit) could only defend on a 1.  It worked ok for several games, although we junked all our house rules when we started playing with LHTR.

FWIW, we tried this same strategy again (I paired up with same buddy as Germany/Japan again).  He played Germany a little more conservatively, and used nearly identical strategy as Japan.  Our Allied foes were a little more aggressive this time (UK was anyway), but Germany got some great dice rolls and was able to put up a truly heroic defense of Europe against multiple invasion attempts.  I was able to smoke Moscow on J5.  USSR player put up as good a fight as he could, and the UK guy also did pretty decent (just got some horrible dice).  Their main downfall was that our US guy STILL hasn’t figured out the strategic aspects of the game, stayed wholly defensive in the Western Hemisphere, and just didn’t become a factor.  He finally came at me on US5 with a huge carrier fleet, but my entire game-start fleet was sitting intact in SZ60, and the fighter/carrier defense advantage came into play.  At the end of the naval bloodbath, there were still 2 Japanese battleships left as the only capital ships of any nation in entire Pacific/IO theater.  So with Axis ~95 IPC income, no immediate threats, and nearly all of US IPC investment on the ocean floor, Allies threw in the towel.

Yes.  As Japan.  Both Germany and I used this type of strat to drive toward Moscow.  Germany threw everything at Russia (primarily through Caucasus), while I went through BUR-YAK-ENO and CHI-SINK-NOV (your “northern and central prongs”, ncsc).  I dropped J1 factories in MAN & FIC, and started churning out tanks, concentrated fleet in SZ60 to protect trannies (UK didn’t pop the KWA tranny, and I bought one more on J2 for a total of 3), and ignored US/UK fleets (the UK fleet had escaped to Med on UK1 anyway).  I tried to get everything I could to Moscow as quickly as possible.

Germany concentrated every ground & air unit within range to hit CAU on G1, even the Med BB (his Med tranny carried a couple of units from SEU as well). Even with CAU relatively well defended, he was able to achieve nearly 3-to-1 superiority.  Russian got some good dice rolls, however, and my German compatriot lost more units than we predicted, even though he won.  GE then kept piling tanks into Russia, and attacked on a broader front in G2/G3 as well.

The good news is that we reduced USSR to a shambles, and, Moscow had to defend against two armor columns from both directions on G4 AND J4. Â

The bad news:  had flown a couple of fighters to Moscow, and these (along with another above-average set of rolls) provided just enough for him to hang on.  At the end of our attacks, there were still 2 Russian tanks and 1 fighter sitting in Moscow.

Well, at this point, I was still sitting in a decent position; still had my navy, had grabbed a nice pile of IPCs, was under no immediate threat (although US navy was becoming a concern), and had more avenues to continue expansion.  But you can imagine the precarious situation Germany was in.  UK/US had been left pretty much free to do as they pleased in the Atlantic.  US had taken Algeria/Libya, and had a nice invasion force ready to go for WEU or SEU (or even Balkans, for that matter).  UK had taken Norway and was ready to go into WEU or even GER itself.  And the whole continent was just an eggshell; Germany had put everything into schwacking Russia.  UK5 and US5 were going to be very ugly indeed.  Germany was spent, and could not remount an attack on the Russian capital from the west, as he was about to get crushed.  I could keep pressure up on my end, but I didn’t have enough to take Moscow on my own.  Our drive just petered out.

So…the strat was indeed quite flawed, and I don’t think I’d try it that way again (at least not on German side).  Our A&A group, however, is pretty green.  We started playing a couple of weeks ago, I think we’ve played 9 games altogether.  Prior to that, only a couple of us had played A&A classic (MANY years ago…like, in the '80s).  So, the focus, strength, and speed of our drive was quite the surprise to the Allies, and it took US/UK a couple of turns to adjust their plans…they really should have hit Europe at least a turn earlier, in my opinion. Â

If I were to try it again, I would probably play Japan very similarly, but would probably schwack the US Pearl Harbor fleet (the “light” method, w/o using the SZ60 BB) on J1.  For Germany, I’d say his biggest mistake (given that one pursues this sort of all-or-nothing approach in the first place) was in not taking Egypt and closing the Suez on G1, and at least getting a few IPCs (however temporarily) in G1.  I’d also probably adjust the German build, from strictly tanks to tanks + 1 fighter per turn).

In any case, it was fun, even though we lost.