Bill101

But Shaka, the references to it being historically correct are just to the use of tanks and rockets, nothing more. Usually tanks are made obsolete by your opponent's anti-tank research, to which there is no counter in the current SC research mechanism.

Although Italian and British air fleets are of equal quality, their HQs aren't. Yes, I guess some techs could be at level 1 or 2 while a rule on no further research is maintained, and one that springs to mind is IT for the USA. Having rockets set at level 2 does mean that they can at least be used, without them being the war winning weapons they can become. However, I recommend playing it with them all on level 0 first, so that you can see how different the game becomes. As I've experienced some frustration with research in recent games, I have found this game to be more relaxing in that respect.

I'd like to second the thoughts above. It has turned out to be a very interesting game, and it's quite a bit harder for the Axis than usual. The extra MPPs given to the USA mean that the allies can do a DDay very early, and this is the Axis' greatest concern. In view of this, while attacking Poland, Denmark, and the Low Countries, I also prepared for an invasion of Scandinavia to be launched at the same time as the battle for France began. It meant that I was spread a bit thin for a while, but fortunately things paid off eventually. Carriers can still be useful, but they are not as effective as before. Rockets are obsolete, but I've been reconciled to this with the knowledge that it is historically correct. This concept is well worth trying, and it's a different way of giving the Axis a hard time without resorting to the usual bidding. Not having to worry about the enemy getting better tech does make a nice change, but old habits die hard, and I cannot shake off the tendency to look at the end of every turn to see if I'm getting level 1 jets! My recommendation: give it a try! [ February 08, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

If most of the Axis troops are still either in the UK or en route to eastern Germany when Russia joins the war, then I have seen some very interesting situations arise which made me glad that we had carried on the games. In one, the Russians were battling hard to break through to a still allied Yugoslavia, and for a while they had the Romanian army totally cut off from German help. The Germans had trouble maintaining their own front line around Warsaw and Konigsberg, while trying to assemble a force to capture Belgrade and break through to Bucharest. It was great fun, and while the end result is probably never in doubt once the UK has been conquered, the allied player should continue fighting until the Axis really have got a visible edge in Russia. The only hope for the allies would be that the Germans send so many troops east that the US can invade either France or the UK. I did at one point strip the UK a little too bare, so it is an eventuality to be borne in mind.

If Russia surrenders, any UK/US troops will retain hold of wherever they are, but the chances are that their link with Iraq and Suez will have been cut. The main thing to do is to remember to reinforce the Iraqi Corps. I forgot in one game I'm playing at the moment, hastening it's fall by quite a few turns as the attack on it wasn't that strong. Don't operate air fleets to Iraq unless the allies really are doing very badly everywhere and they attack Iraq with a really weak force. In one game I did hold Beirut for ages with a German air fleet, as the allies didn't have Iraq and they were attacking Beirut with 2 Corps and a battleship, all of which were out of supply. However, I would say that really it is better to keep your fighting power concentrated on the fronts where you can make a difference. This means that the allies can make small gains like taking Iraq and Beirut, but hopefully while they are doing that you are kicking Stalin out of the Kremlin! [ February 07, 2004, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

In the game where I was Axis, towards the end I had 10 level 4 rockets, and because I had air superiority they could carve great gaps in the Russian lines fairly easily. I only develop rockets in a small number of my games, usually ones where I probably have the edge anyway, but once developed they are really useful at taking key positions. Although their offensive power declines with range, they are still useful at reducing entrenchment, thus saving the armies and air fleets for the main attack. I'd still like to develop the 1944 one further, even though it is a tough one for the German player. I've been thinking that a house rule limiting allied amphibious invasions to France and Italy would give the Axis player a chance, as otherwise it is only a few moves into the game before there are landings in both France and north Germany (the latter usually by the Russians). While they demonstrate good strategy by the allied player, more than one DDay at a time is so unhistorical. [ February 06, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

It was called La Baguette Tank Group. I think I came close to stopping the Axis for a while in this game, but you are right that the difficulty level for the allies is harder. But then it probably always is. In the last game where I was allies I was rather aggressive and conquered Italian North Africa while the battle of France was raging, and then a while later took Greece. Unfortunately by that time the hordes of the Dark Master were massing against me, and my three units in Greece were all killed two turns later! I also tried developing a new strategy for dealing with the German invasion of Russia - strategic bombers attack his HQs, escorted by the air fleets. The theory being that no HQs = no Axis conquest of Russia. While it had some success, killing one HQ and damaging a few others, my main mistake was in putting all the allied effort into Russia, and not launching a DDay. That game and our next where it was my turn to play Axis really taught me the necessity of the allies carrying out a landing in the west. Unfortunately after that game Rannug decided to reduce the German rockets' level of starting research. I think that my atom bombs were a bit too effective for him.

Given the trouncing I'm currently getting from Rannug, I think I'd better turn to pacifism too! We've played it 4 times so far, and the Axis have won every time, but the allies are learning. It's probably changed a little since you first designed it, and the first and most important change was renaming the French tank group to something a bit more appropriate.

Yes, I like this campaign too. I've been playing a modified version of this with Rannug for a while, and it is a lot harder for both sides than the standard 39 campaign. Rockets can be very useful, but they are very susceptible to enemy attack. Unfortunately they also require some luck with research, but once they have level 3 or more they are good fun (not for the enemy though!). [ February 06, 2004, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Shaka, the best source is Steven Zaloga and Victor Madej's The Polish Campaign 1939. It has a good account of the invasion, but it spends more time describing the Polish army's doctrine, equipment and organisation. I have read it so many times I know much of it off by heart, but it might be out of print now. Steven Zaloga had another book published last year with the same title. It will be similar, but less substantial. You can find details of it at www.ospreypublishing.com. The Polish peace time strength was 30 infantry divisions, 11 cavalry brigades, and 2 mechanised brigades (these were more of a motorised infantry formation than a tank unit), making 43 units. There were also other units, including 3 light tank battalions. On mobilisation the number of infantry divisions were to be increased to 39, supplemented by units of National Guard and Border Troops. Things didn't work out exactly as planned during the invasion (not a big surprise!), and at one point towards the end they even had a cavalry division, made up of the remnants of several cavalry brigades. As to artillery, each infantry regiment of 3 battalions had 2 75mm guns. In addition, the divisional artillery was 48 75mm and 12 heavier pieces (a mixture of 105mm and 155mm if I remember correctly). Cavalry units just had 75mm artillery, and anything heavier wouldn't have been so mobile. The mechanised brigades had less artillery than a cavalry brigade, mainly 75s and a battery of 100mm, though sources differ, and the second brigade had a slightly different TOE to the first one. They also had some artillery at higher levels, including some motorised heavy artillery units, the heaviest being a regiment of 27 220mm mortars, which unfortunately only had bombs that were of use against concrete emplacements. They had a good morale effect when some were used against German units during the Bzura battle, but they caused few casualties. Some links for you: http://derela.republika.pl/armcarpl.htm http://www.geocities.com/kumbayaaa/ [ February 04, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Liam wrote: "Poles needed an offensive by the Brits and French within a week! Where the Hell were they? They had their fingers up their butt I tell you!" I couldn't agree more, and they could have saved so much blood and suffering if they had done something. Even the French offensive into the Saar was a joke. I think that their inactivity is the biggest tragedy of World War II.

Shaka: I'm referring to the 37mm Bofors anti-tank gun, of which the Poles had about 1,200. I have also come across accounts of 40mm Bofors AA guns being used in an anti-tank role (one of the 5 Russian tanks destroyed at Wilno was knocked out by one), as well as of 75mm field and horse artillery being used in this role. The Poles did have some thousands of fairly decent anti-tank rifles too which were to have been issued one per platoon or cavalry troop. Unfortunately, not all were distributed to the soldiers in time. An account by a cavalry officer that I have read said that the anti-tank rifles were rather long and too bulky to be easily carried on horseback. They couldn't just sling the gun over their shoulder as they would with a normal rifle. They weren't quite as long as the later Russian ATRs, but the pictures I've seen of them do confirm this. The Germans equipped 10 of their infantry divisions with captured Polish anti-tank rifles for the campaign in France, and they didn't stop using them until late 1941 when they realised that they were useless against the Russian tanks that were attacking them outside Moscow. A friend of mine once fired an anti-tank rifle while he was in the British army during the war, and he said that he slid back several feet when it fired, but it put a big hole through the target, which was a piece of railway line. I don't decry the French soldiers' fighting spirit, but I mean that overall the country didn't show the same qualities, including the general staff. Some French fought very well, many of whom were unfortunately left behind at Dunkirk holding the beachhead while others whose spirit was broken were embarked. I also admire De Gaulle's efforts to launch counter-attacks, and he was a French military thinker who was advocating ideas similar to Liam's. The problem with the French was that they learnt no lessons whatsoever from the Polish defeat as they didn't think that the same could happen to them. The German 37mm gun (Pak 35/36) was nearly but not quite as good. It didn't matter against most Polish tanks, but in France they were definitely inferior, which is why the 88s were so useful at Arras. I have come across an account of 20mm AA guns being used by the Germans in a ground support role in Poland, but not 88s. Doesn't mean that they didn't though.

The Poles had effective anti-tank weapons (their anti-tank gun was better than the German equivalent) they just didn't have enough of them. Their establishment was 3 to an infantry battalion, 4 to a cavalry regiment, making 27 to an infantry division, 12 or 16 to a cavalry brigade (depending on the number of regiments in the brigade). More anti-tank guns would have helped, but other problems were more significant: 1) The extent of territory each unit had to cover was too broad. 2) The grand strategic situation was totally against them. 3) Their communications were inadequate. 4) They had less artillery than the Germans, and often theirs would have to help repel tank attacks, firing over open sights rather than being used for indirect fire. 5) They had too few units to cope with being invaded from every side. 6) Their air force could not protect them, and their AA guns were too few. They also ran out of AA ammo during the battle of the Bzura. 7) The more modern versions of their aircraft, both fighters and light reconaissance bombers, were being produced for export rather than home defense, leaving the Polish air force with the older types. They also exported 168 modern Bofors AA guns before the war, some of which were bought by the British. Polish doctrine did follow the French to a large degree, but not totally. Their own war experiences from the period 1914-21 were different from the French, and they were more offensively minded - hence the myths of cavalry charges against tanks. I've always been interested in the Polish campaign, not just because their situation was an interesting problem, but also because they showed a good fighting spirit in 1939 which most of the French didn't show 9 months later, despite having more and better equipment. And lastly a note on the reliability of tanks at the time: when the Russians invaded Poland, the Poles knocked out about 40 Russian tanks, while over 400 broke down en route. [ February 03, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Liam I never thought that you meant lumbering Tigers, and I'll agree with you on the deterrent effect that such a force would have. However, a tank force would become obsolete far quicker than just about any other part of the army, thus the army would probably cost a lot more to keep it up to date than if it was an all arms force. Not necessarily a problem, but most countries would not want to sustain the cost in the long run. Also, even a force of 2,000 tanks could not effectively cover the whole of the Dutch frontier with Germany on its own. They would have to be literally thrown at the invader in one hit, and if they didn't have engineers and plenty of supply troops with them then I cannot see them going too far. The experiences of the time would argue against all tank formations in favour perhaps of an all arms mobile force. The British tank attack at Cambrai in 1917, by the Spanish Republicans in 1937, and by the Poles outside Warsaw in 1939, all showed that tanks operating largely alone could be effective, but on all three ocassions no sustainable gains were made as once they had outrun their supporting troops they were cut off and destroyed, or had to be abandoned as they had run out of fuel and ammo. I would certainly advocate that any army from the 1920s onward, and no matter how small, would require a decently equipped and well prepared mobile force, so that if they were attacked they would be able to offer more than just a passive defence. I even believe that countries like Poland were correct to maintain horsed units, even if I have different ideas about their organisation and strategic deployment. But I think that this mobile force should only be a proportion of the army as a whole, even if it would receive most of the funding. [ February 03, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Liam wrote: I always thought if I was a Mini-Nation like the Netherlands or say modern day Kuwait during a time of trouble I'd buy 2,000 or 3,000 tanks and some air and use them instead of trying to raise a large army. That's a very interesting question which has fascinated me for years, especially in relation to the defense of Poland in 1939. Conservatism is always a great hurdle to cross in reforming any army, and cost is the next one. In terms of cost effectiveness, the Poles could buy 10 excellent Bofors anti-tank guns for the price of 1 decent tank, armed with the same gun. The trouble with an all tank army is that they cannot be on the move 24 hours a day, they cannot hold territory, and they aren't so good in close terrain. Who will protect them at night while they are resting and refuelling? I would therefore opt for an all arms force which has a good mobile component, including some tanks, but most importantly, excellent communications.

I look for: 1) Some balance between the sides, but not necessarily perfect equality. For instance, one side might start with more troops, while the other has greater income. 2) Situations that we don't normally see in the 1939 campaign, such as a battle centred around Turkey, or the allies invading the Balkans. 3) Tech levels that aren't normally researched, like heavy bombers, rockets and sonar. 4) Difficult problems to attempt to solve that we haven't faced before.

I do disband the Corps that conquered Ireland, but not until the following two conditions have been met: 1) Dublin has reached 80% efficiency. This means that your Corps which is in Dublin will be at it's maximum possible supply, giving you the maximum number of MPPs when you disband it. 2) The chance of Sea Lion has passed, and there is at least one air unit on the mainland of Britain close enough to observe any Axis transports that might be sent to Ireland, with some ships available to destroy any transports should they appear. This might mean that you can't disband the Corps until 1941 or later.

The Irish Sword, magazine of the Military History Society of Ireland, is available from MILITARY HISTORY SOCIETY OF IRELAND Newman House, University College, 86, St Stephen's Green, Dublin, 2 Eire They publish articles on all aspects of military history that involved Irish soldiers, which means that they cover just about every conflict. They are very helpful but back issues do cost (I joined the society as back issues are cheaper to members). The article I was looking at is in Volume XXII, Number 90, Winter 2001. It is called "Fort Shannon: a case history in Anglo-Irish co-operation during the second world war".

I know that the Spanish received a good fighter from Germany, possibly later in the war. It was either a different version of the famous 109, or a similar plane. I can't remember the name of it (He112?), but as Spain had just finished a civil war in 1939 it is likely that they had quite a few aircraft around, albeit of varying quality. One thing the Spanish would have had, over and above most other countries, is recent war experience. A good argument could be made for having the Spanish troops start with some experience.

I've been doing a bit of research on Ireland, specifically from an article in The Irish Sword, magazine of the Military History Society of Ireland. Now, although the situation of Ireland with regards to the Allies or Axis during the early period of the war (end 1939 - late 1941) is complicated, if one has to decide either way, the government was effectively more Allied than Axis. Giving Ireland to the Axis would be historically wrong. If Britain had been invaded AND conquered then things might have been different, but despite disagreements and hostility between their respective prime ministers, there was co-operation between the two governments right from the start of the war. If anyone wants me to post some examples then I'd be happy to.

This sounds like an idea worth trying out!

The IRA were active during the 1940s, but with nothing like the scale of activity that had been seen at the end of the first world war, or was to be seen again in the 1970s and 80s. They weren't that big though, having split in the early 1920s between those who were happy to accept a division of Ireland and those who were not. The IRA that was still around in 1940 was made up of those who hadn't accepted the ceasefire with Britain, and they were mainly active in the north, rather than in the Republic.

The Baltic States were increasingly coming under the sway of Moscow, so as a result they would have to be counted as Allied. What the population really thought was another matter... I'm not convinced about Yugoslavia though. Remember that it is a Pro-Allied Coup that brings them into the allied camp in this game. If my memory is correct the previous government was more pro-Axis. I would put Greece down as Allied, as it was wary of Italian expansionism. Romania, Hungary and Italy are all interesting cases because although they fought on the Axis side, they were all friendly and helpful to Poles escaping their country to the west.

Best wishes John, it'll be good to have you back. Bill

Edwin P wrote: In my opinion, HQ units represent supply depots that allocate resources to nearby armies. The supply depots may be hidden, but the trucks, horses, railways etc. used to move the supplies around would be pretty easy to spot. Just giving HQs a low AA defense figure (not a high one, as Edwin is right that AA guns were never very effective at preventing attacks) goes some way to redressing the balance.