nemo

No one can deny the influence and military genius of Colonel Klink. And, to balance the game, you must have his foil, Hogan. Any WWII game worth its salt would prepackage their tiles.

For a more comprehensive solution, please consult the following link: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52915.html

I don't know the comparative quality of medics or field hospitals, but you have a very plausible point. In addition, what about the following? U.S. ground forces probably enjoyed a relative advantage over others in that it COULD evacuate its wounded. Over the course of all their battles, I imagine Russia and Germany didn't have as much time/resources (e.g., being overrun or lacked lorries). Also, the U.S. entered the war late. The length of time in the war certainly increased your change of moving from the wounded column to the KIA column.

I lost a better link, but the table at http://ragz-international.com/world_war_ii_casualties.htm shows total casualties by country. Total Russian casualties are incomparable.

I realize this is only for one battle, but consult http://pu.nikki.la/achievements/berlin.html for quick statistics on the Battle for Berlin. The Russian army did lose (kia and wounded) a staggering 600,000 men, but it was "only" a 25% casualty rate. I can't interpret the German data (unless kia and wounded include civilians), but their rate was ostensibly much, much worse. Your interesting question remains though: over the course of the entire war, which branch/service had the highest casualty rate?

For extra information, consult http://uboat.net/fates/losses/chart.htm and http://www.uboatwar.net/uboats.htm. Even though "77% of operational boats were lost in combat," technological advances (e.g., radar and hedgehog), improved tactics, Allied numbers, Allied experience, and Axis loss of experience made uboats a death trap in 1943-1945.

The German Uboats. I don't recall the exact percentage, but, by the end of the war, the veteran naval/air units were sinking 90%+ of the uboats. And there's no parachuting into friendly territory in this branch.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Oak. Please allow me to inquire deeper into this silly idea. What if you dedicate your Allied fleet to temporary control of the Baltic and invade with more than a single corps? It would be very costly, but, if the Axis opts against Sealion, is there any merit (Axis expending MPPs moving units west then east, increasing Russian readiness, delaying Axis operations elsewhere, etc.)?

Ok, stupid idea #3. (3) Has anybody ever explored an early (maybe turns 5-10) Allied invasion (even with just corps) of Konigsberg? This would be costly, but would this force Germany to use air fleets here instead of elsewhere and expend MPPs to operate units east (which might increase Russia's readiness??)? Or is this just foolish (because, e.g., the Axis would opt for Sealion or would easily crush all transports/fleet)?

Thanks Logan. I learn something new every day.

To clarify #2, if the Axis player opts against Sea Lion and focuses on Iraq, Spain, the Med, the Nordic countries, etc. is it possible that England could take over the U.S. and seize a huge advantage (booty plus MPPs under one roof)?

(1) Is it worthwhile for an early (i.e., within the first 4 turns) Allied invasion of Norway? (2) What about an early Allied invasion of the U.S.? Idle musings on a slow day.