JerseyJohn
-
Posts
6,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JerseyJohn
-
-
JayJay_H
The key must be London --? Sorry Turkey never joined your Axis, if it's any consolation the country is more fun to conquer than it is to have for an ally. Though fairly large the Turkish army isn't much of an offensive threat and it has no navy.
Hitler spent a lot of time trying to get them involved but they were still too stymied from WWI.
Britain and France, aside from dismembering the Ottoman Empire actually attempted to parcel out Turkey itself but at the last minute the plan was scrapped.
Greece still wanted the Dardenelles and the two countries fought a vicous war over them in the early '20s with Greece being badly mauled.
Considering that, it's a bit humorous in many of these games where Greece and Turkey are linked in their Political interests (Balkan League, etc..)
[ November 19, 2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
"I always let the Jerries do ALL the work, otherwise it's too simple."
-- JayJay__H
I think the simpler strategy is to have Germany do everything, it's more difficult to nurse Italy through it's early difficulties and have her take Belgrade when the Hungarians, Bulgarians and Germans are actually doing most of the work. After that she's pretty strong and after taking Greece on her own (bypassing the Greek mountain armies) she's very strong.
Regarding the Big Three -- I used to post a long preambe with all the reasons I thought Italy, historically, would have been unable to do any better than possibly hold her own possessions, except East Africa, of course.
Among other things, Italy in 1940 lacked everything from spare parts for her ships to sand filters for her aircraft in Lybia as well as every form of oil product or reserve (no one knew at the time that Libya had plenty of it!).
Her entry in the war was only a bluff to convince England she should also make peace with France. Mussolini knew his country was unprepared for war but wanted to grab some of the spoils before a peace treaty was signed.
During the 1939-40 "phony war" a German HQ conference brought up the topic of Italy . Gerd von Rundstedt made an ominous prediction, "If it remains neutral we'll have to keep one infantry division to cover the Alps passages. If it joins the British we'll have to double that. If they join us we'll have to send a dozen divisions to defend Italy."
I believe the key to Italy's usefulness, historically, depended upon Spain's early entry and the taking of Gibraltar and Malta, otherwise Italy is too exposed.
Historically Hitler had fits when Franco didn't enter after the fall of France because that was the way Germany also saw it.
Hitler had made the mistake of sending Admiral Canaris to talk with Franco, nobody knew Canaris was playing both sides and he convinced Franco it was in his best interests to remain neutral.
The Spanish Civil War was over a little over a year and the country was in ruins.
*** ***
After their meeting, Hitler said he'd rather have his teeth pulled without anathstetic than meet again with "the Spaniard!"
[ November 19, 2002, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Interesting -- after a while I got tired of her joining the Axis because it made the war in Russia too easy. The proceedure I generally followed was remaining tacit in the Balkans till Yugo couped, then crushing it and letting Italy take Belgrade. When Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria were in the Axis and Yugo conquered Italy would take Greece and, having already taken Vichy France, the Italians would increasy their fleet, then make a move on the Eastern Med, sinking the British squadron at Alexandria.
They'd then load up, go to Syria, invade Iraq and Egypt (from east and west) and by then Turkey would nearly always enter the Axis.
As was the case with Bill Macon I'd invariably have also taken London by then -- I'm a firm believer in getting Operation Sealion up and out as early as possible. As JayJay__H says, that might be the key, the Axis having both Greece and London. Also, if you invade Yugoslavia before she coups I've found neither the Balkan States nor Turkey come in.
The Italian Mediteranean plan is illustrated and more detailed four or five Forum pages back in Zeres "The Second Roman Empire."
In Cos, Turkey would never enter for the human Axis but nearly always for the AI Axis. I was amazed in this game to see it become Axis at all.
[ November 19, 2002, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Absolutely, the Japanese are about the best at mangling English, which is why their spies were so effective, the FBI couldn't understand them unless they were transmitting in one of their broken codes! Then there's Yiddish English and Italian English and all the others. It's a language meant for mangling -- and this sentence proves it!
*** *** ***
[should be photos of Bela Lugosi in films]
Bela says, "Why do you worry so, Amona, I mangled the language for decades and they loved me for it!"
[ November 19, 2002, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
-- Yohan,
Agreed it's a sound approach. Early on I liked giving Italy a shot at greatness, then found later it wasn't really that important. Now I vary my approach; both ways seem equally effective.
To be honest, I don't think the Italians had a chance in the actual event. Mussolini, thinking the big war was still years off, bankrupted the country in Ethiopia and Spain. His timetable called for war readiness in 1941, not 1939.
Militarily, I think Fascist Italy reached it's peak about the time Hitler came to power and was ebbing after it's conquest of Ethiopia.
The only reason Mussolini entered the war in mid-1940 is because he thought it would end in a month or so. Surely he realized that, if it continued even with Britain alone, Italy would forfeit it's newly acquired East African possessions, along with 200,000 troops cut off from reinforcement and supply!
-
Exactly, Immers, why the hell can't human opponents behave more like androids? :eek:
[ November 18, 2002, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
If the Royal Navy suffers heavy losses early on, you might want to at least cross the channel and grab London. Even if you're preparing a Russian invasion this can usually be done without much trouble; station a couple of armies and two luftflottes there with a weak HQ, preferably one of the sixes.
That effectively takes Britain out of the nuisance category. From that stage, as things calm down in Russia, you can add a unit or two to Britain and force them back to the hilly country south of Manchester, if you don't actually finish her completely you'll at least have little to worry about when America enters the war.
Usually, after London falls, the push north is comparatively easy as long as it isn't done recklessly.
In this whole thing I've been talking in terms of an Allied AI -- naturally, against a human you can't anticipate any particular behavior.
[ November 18, 2002, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Very enjoyable. Aside from the actual events described, your combination of written narrative with interlaced photos has reached the point of excellence.
[ November 18, 2002, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
I've found Spain enters when England's lost London and on the ropes. Turkey is less predicable -- sometimes she enters before Barbarossa, sometimes afterwards and often she doesn't enter at all.
Usually, if she enters early and Germany adds a Turkish thrust it turns out being more than the USSR can handle.
-
They aren't on the lists but are mentioned in entries that came afterwards.
I like Bradley (and von Runstedt for the Germans) but don't think they're among the very best if both sides are combined.
Clark I have a problem with: not because of his specific tactics in the battles of the Italian campaign, which would have been a meatgrinder regardless of who was running things, but because, when the breakout finally occurred in early June '44 he went for Rome and personal publicity instead of trying to cut off and destroy the routed German units fleeing from Casino and Anzio.
Even Kesselring was baffled by his actions. The seasoned German units, which should have been cut off, were able to reach a new defensive line and remained a problem till the very last.
The hell of it is, Mark Clark understood what was going on and still went for the news splash!
-
Agreed. Everyone knows about the problems Germany had in the Battle of Britain, fewer people realize the Brits and Americans also suffered huge losses when they went over to strategic air offensives, and for almost the identical reasons Germany had fared so poorly.
The interesting thing is the Allies had the same problems despite having much heavier bombers that were specifically designed for strategic bombing missions. It just meant Germany countered with improved fighters and radar guided "night fighters."
The Hurricanes and Spitfires, as escorts, had the same range and personnel loss problems that doomed the ME-109's earlier in the same role. Also, allied crews shot down over occupied Europe were just as totally lost as German crews shot down over Britain.
As mentioned earlier, these things are rarely mentioned.
I tend to agree with Flash, the present escort/interceptor system seems inadequate.
On the other hand, later in the war when the Americans developed effective long range fighters like the Mustang, interceptor losses rose noticably -- by then Germany's ability to replace them was dwindling so it's difficult to guage how much of the Luftwaffe's demise was due to combat and how much was due to a decimated industrial base. After losing Rumania, for example, it was difficult for Germany to even fuel the planes she still had pilots for.
-
-- Amona,
As always thanks for the support. Your English seems very fine to me and I have no problem understanding you. If you want to contribute feel free.
If you aren't sensitive about your English, and there's no reason you should be, why not develop a spy character trying to blend in to a British or American setting, someone vain who thinks he fits right in but really sticks out like a sore thumb? Another possibility would be a member of a "Government in Exile." If the sentences are unintentionally funny they'll fit in with the premise -- this is a humorous effort. I can't speak for the British, but most Americans love seeing the language mangled, intentionally or otherwise; I think it's because subconscioulsy we don't particularly like it.
In any case, I'd like to read what you have to say and I'm sure others would to. We would never be concerned with the way it comes out grammatically -- I'm damn sure your English is much, much better than anything I'd manage in your language! Aside from which English is prone to sounding humorous, moving a few key words around changes the meaning entirely and it happens all the time.
A last point -- The best way to improve your English is to write some really horrible sentences -- you'll notice it right away and can always go back later to change them. Most of the few postings of mine that make sense go through several revisions before even I can understand them. With each revision you learn something about the language.
The real problem is this: suppose you come up with a great character who speaks hackneyed English and after a while your own English radically improves and becomes perfect -- then we're really screwed!
Go for it -- I'm sure the others feel the same way, and those who don't aren't worth worrying about.
[ November 19, 2002, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
In the games where I've loaned two German airfleets to Italy for taking Malta and later had Germany extend the comparativly small amounts of air units to help Italy take the Mediteranean, the Italians have always wound up very powerful without weakening Germany.
Because of all the extra MPPs the Italian research develops quickly and enables Italy to field good units of her own. If Germany is having problems either in Russia or dealing with a landing in the West, it helps to have a strong Italy.
Or -- you could just do everything with Germany. That also works. Either strategy works, except the German way Italy can never afford much research and doesn't emerge as anything. I prefer having two functional Axis powers.
Agreed on Spain -- I've never found a need for invading it as the Axis. I don't even like invading Turkey -- in this game it joins the Axis fairly often and with good resources, why invade her?
-
Meanwhile, in his Bavarian Mountain Retreat . . ..
[should be a photo of Hitler on the phone, smiling]
"That's right Hermann, the whole gang is coming over for a private screening of the new John Wayne movie -- yes, the American actor who resembles me so!"
"Yes, he is in the cavalry again, the Americans can't affort panzers. -- I suppose in the movie he hunts down more evil American Bolsheviks, the ones with the feathers."
[ November 18, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
You might want to visit what is currently Forum Page 5,
"The Second Roman Empire" started by Zeres on Oct. 31
-- Sound paths are explored where Italy, whith a little help early on from the Germans, ends up with Southern France, Algeria, Syria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Egypt, Iraq and Turkey (if it doesn't join the Axis first).
Many players agree there are good reasons for a strategy that boosts Italian power, the one in "Second Roman Empire" was Mussolini's grand fantasy -- without Swizerland, which has two armies, plunder, and can always be taken afterwards.
*** ***
[should be Italian postage stamp of the two dictators]
*** ***
[should be a Fascist Postcard with Il Duce in several martial poses]
*** ***
[should be an Allied Propaganda cartoon of Mussolini's brain in X-ray]
*** ***
[should be another postcard of Il Duce, this time wearing an infantry helmet]
*** ***
[should be photo of Mussolini and his mistress in death with Il Duce holding a Roman eagle]
*** ***
[ November 18, 2002, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
The initial North African campaign was more difficult than it appeared. Graziani realized his primarily infantry army had no chance of successfully walking across the Egyptian desert and taking the Suez Canal.
What he really wanted was to keep the status quo; fortify Tobruk and Benghazi and simply hold Cyrainica, which might well have succeeded, but Mussolini pushed him into action so he moved fifty miles into Egypt and set up a series of fortified boxes while extending the coastal railroad from the border to Mersa Matruh. He intended to repeat this proceedure as many times as he was able so his army would always have a reliable supply base.
Realizing this, Wavell ordered O'Conner to take his tanks on a flaning maneuver which was only intended as a raid but, thanks to captured Italian supplies, turned into an offensive.
Stranded far from their supply bases, the Italian infantry faced the prospect of literally dying of thirst, and surrendered by the tens of thousands. On several occasions there were battles and when they occurred the Italians put up a good defensive fight, as they did in East Africa, but were doomed primarily by their own supply and equipment troubles -- especially in armor, which was light and fast but little more than recon vehicles.
Once O'Conner began cutting his way to the rear it was all over -- the garrisons left behind at Tobruck and Bengahzi were too small and bereft of anti-tank weapons.
O'Conner's desert tactics became the basis for all Rommel's offensives and they worked as well against the British as they had against the Italians -- infantry by passed without a supply line in the desert had no source of water and was forced to surrender. Numbers -- as long as they were numbers of non-motorized foot soldiers -- were of little significance.
A more conservative general would have dug in and called to London for more troops. I suspect that would have been Monty's course of action. A head on assault of Grazziani's positions would probably not have succeded. The Italians were poorly equiped, ill-trained and poorly led, but when dug in and supported by artillery they defended well -- which was demonstrated repeatedly in Rommel's battles; if they didn't have at least that capability he couldn't have used his two to four (depending on the campaign) German Divisions as a flanking force.
Ironically, after Rommel's capture of Tobruck, the German High command had the same view Grazziani held two years earlier, that it was best to simply hold Cyrainica and tie up British forces in Egypt.
Rommel convinced them that he'd captured enough British supplies to carry him through to Cairo, where he hoped to capture much more, and he was given the green light even to the extent of cancelling the planned Malta campaign in order to send those troops, a German parratroop brigade and an Italian parratroop regiment along with additional Italian infantry to join him in
Egypt.
But the whole venture depended upon more successful flanking actions and sweeping around El Alamein, whose natural funneling characteristics were known to both sides long before the Axis reached that point. Auchinleck, having taken personnel command of the Eigth Army, fortified the position and repulsed Rommel's attack at Ruyesat Ridge (First Alamein) and was subsequently sacked by churchill for his success and Ritchie's earlier failures, replaced in the field by Montgomery and in the theater HQ by Alexander. With few tanks remaining and suddenly short of fuel and all other supplies I doubt Rommel had any remaining delusions and would probably have begun withdrawing even then had it not been for Hitler.
Having come within 40 miles of Alexandria, Hitler took continued success as a certainty and, when the battle bogged down, issued the idiotic victory or death orders that doomed the Afrika Korps.
Interestingly, the whole course of events had been spelled out months earlier by Paulus, a general staff officer prior to his appointment as Sixth Army commander.
But -- essentially the point about O'Conner can't be argued with, he just didn't see enough of the war to be properly evaluated. It was obvious, though, that he was an excellent leader and facing the Germans would not have altered that. In Lybia, facing Rommel, he would undoubtedly have fared better than men like Ritchie who were Infantry officers.
Agreed on Slim, like Stillwell a fine commander in an overlooked theatre, and also on most of the recently mentioned Germans -- all good commanders but not to be confused with Manstein or Zhukov.
-
Agreed -- what I don't like about not having it on the map is in COS the US needed a link, I think it was Liverpool. If England is knocked out and America still in, I'd like it to invade somewhere -- possibly Algeria or Morroco's Atlantic coast. The prospect of success would be grim, of course, but possibly in combination with the USSR it might mean something.
The flip side, haveing America more active and on the map leads to our current situation.
In an earlier forum a lot was said about numerous continent screens or a global approach, but it went nowhere. Invading the U. S. from either coast would be much harder than invading Russia from Poland and the Balkans.
I'd like to see some or all of that and I'm sure everyone else who posts shares this opinion.
-
And he had a fine sense of humor -- there's excellent interview footage of him in the North African episode of BBCs World at War.
Glad someone else agrees on this.
-
You'll find them in dozens of past Forums along with comparrisons to Hicom and Third Reich.
-
Agreed 100%
There's an earlier forum a few pages back called "North America" where this idea was gone into with a lot of interesting detail -- dgaad made numerous entries about Hitler's plans for a (post war) Blue Water Navy and views were exchanged about hypothetical situations in the late 40s -- the US having the Atom Bomb but Germany having Jet and Rocket technology.
[ November 17, 2002, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
moved to part one
[ December 19, 2002, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
Taking the U.S. and Canada is definitely a lot of fun.
-
I can't see any real dogs in the lot and at this point the total must be at least double the original number of candidates.
We definitly need seperate lists for generals and admirals and seperate lists for the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters.
It's hard to compare generals like O'Conner, Schorner, Heinrici and Slim with others like Guderian, Rommel and Zhukov who were more prominent throughout the war and commanded large formations in varied conditions -- nearly hopeless defense to equally balanced offense. Some of those mentioned, such as Heinrici, didn't get a chance till things were hopeless.
The problem with seperate general and admiral lists is obvious, the European War was dominated by generals and the Pacific by admirals.
It isn't going to work out in a uniform manner, but it's an interesting thread.
[ November 18, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
-
"Billote was right. We took France, but they left and whatever they had went with them, not single thing remains standing."
[ November 19, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]
"Free French" AAR: Discussion Forum
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
*** *** ***
Excellent posting, your English is fine and your ideas are very good.
*** *** ***
"I tell you Amona is the only one in your Forum who is not a half-wit! Why that other one claiming John Wayne looks like me -- a womanizer a smoker a drinker and a meat eater! Perhaps Gary Cooper, though he is neither so handsome nor as Iron willed as myself. Or maybe Clark Gable or perhaps Randolph Scott, though neither of them could make speeches or paint buildings as well as myself -- but we are not talking about my outstanding qualities, we are talking about your pathetic Free French Forum -- And I give you an ultimatum -- Put Amona in, or Take Germany Out. As a matter of fact, if you could take Germany out anyway we'd be very appreciative. I'd be willing to give you, uh, Luxemburg -- minus the mineral and administrative rights, of course."
*** *** ***
I vote you stay with Japan, but it's up to Carl von Mannerheim. You might want to send him an E-mail, his envelope is on top of his postings.
If Carl wants to keep Japan then I think you'd be great as China. You could do both sides, Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Tse Tung and I'm certain you'd do both of them very well.
In any case, make postings whenever you want. Origianlly this thing belonged to our departed colleague Zeres (you shouldn't ask what happened to that filthy commie) and Carl, myself and General Billote sort of forced him out and took over. Democracy at work.
*** *** ***
Pompously assining chunks of the world is such a great feeling, it reminds me that scene in the old movie where Charlie Chaplin has his fantasy with a bouncing globe:
[ November 19, 2002, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]