Panzerkeil

No single white females looking for companions here.

The Red Army was truly humiliated in their war with Finland. They were also suffering from command disruptions brought about as a result of Stalin's purge of the officer corps. What came of the Russian/Finnish war was that the Red Army learned from its mauling at the hands of the Finns. They adapted skis for their own troops and put them to use when they fought the Germans. What made the Russians so tough in the snow as compared to the Germans was their native ability to survive Russian winter conditions. Makes sense; after all, they did grow up there. Consequently, they knew to use thinner lube oils in their engines and weapons, something the Germans had to learn that first winter. The Russian tank designs also reflected knowledge of operating conditions in Russia. The T-34's used wide tracks to better distribute the weight of the tank. They were able to outmaneuver German tanks in mud and snow. The Germans tried to copy this design by adding extensions to their tracks, known as Ostketten or something like that. Whether they were truly awesome fighters in winter is beside the point; the Germans were unprepared for the conditions in Russia while their enemy was ready to fight in mud and snow. The disparity perhaps gave birth to the legend.

What a coincidence. As I am typing this, "Battle of Britain" is playing on History. Here's a Brit diplomat talking to a German diplomat at the British embassy in Switzerland: "We're not easily frightened. Also, we know how hard it is for an army to cross the Channel. The last little corporal who tried came a cropper! So don't threaten or dictate to us until you are marching up Whitehall. And even then we won't listen!"

Interesting stats. Thanks for the info. Should provide for some interesting debates as to Sea Lion in SC2. Would you be able to provide some info as to the actual landing craft for the "real" invasion? It is easy to see why, in consideration of the disparity between the two sides why Raeder wanted total air superiority as a condition for Sea Lion

Agreed, the support groups later in the war were useful, but they still performed their most useful work around convoys. In the early years, when there were only a limited number of escorts with a convoy, many a time a U-boat got away because the convoy escort had to break off and rejoin the convoy. What made the support groups so useful was that they could sail to assist a convoy escort, relieve them of the contact and then spend as much time as necessary to hunt that U-boat. The support groups or hunter killers didn't pound about in the open sea to find a U-boat because in those conditions it was the U-boat which had the advantage of being able to evade. They could hear the group coming and evade. The support groups sailed in the vicinity of the convoy lanes, able to go this way or that, depending on which convoy needed assistance. They would sail to reinforce a threatened convoy's escorts. The most effective offensive patrols were conducted by radar equipped aircraft in the Bay of Biscay, the choke point for U-boats sailing to and from their French bases. Offensive patrolling by surface vessels was a waste of time.

The early years in the Battle of the Atlantic demonstrated that the Admiralty was unprepared to defend Britain's merchant shipping from the U-boats. Most of the destroyers were tasked with protecting the RN's assets, like carriers and heavy warships. The convoys had to make do with what was left. It was only when the British forced themselves to seriously commit the proper resources to ASW that they began to master the U-boat peril; which climaxed in the spring and early summer of 1943. This game gives the impression that the way to kill U-boats is to form hunting groups and sail into the Atlantic and hope to bump into a gaggle of them, where they could all be conveniently battled. The Admiralty soon wised up and realized that offensive patrolling would not bag them many U-boats. They realized that the best place to find U-boats was in the vicinity of a convoy. If they wanted to sink ships, they had to find and attack the convoys. Thus the British devoted resources to building and training proper escort groups for their convoys, providing long range aircraft to close the air gap and finally to use escort carriers from end to end. Only once there were sufficient escorts for all the convoys could they form special support groups which were tasked with supplementing a besieged convoy's escorts. The Americans at first tried operating "hunter/killer units, but had no luck at all with offensive patrolling. All they managed to do was waste fuel. They also realized the same thing as the British earlier had learned, the best place to find U-boats was near convoys. It would be nice to be able to "automate" this part of the game. The U-boats should suffer operational losses as the result of encounters with convoy escorts. Perhaps there could be a subset in the research part of the game, for such things as: long range escorts and ASW planes, radar, training doctine, escort carriers and so forth. There could also be corresponding areas for the Axis, like: longer range U-boats, torpedo technology, search aircraft. Then these varying factors could go into the calculations for convoy MPP predation. That would leave the cruiser, carrier and battleship units in the game for proper naval operations.

What I find disappointing is the whole naval combat model. We have U-boats that do not have to sail to and from port for resupply, but their hunters have to. The game handles U-boats vs convoy combat abstractly and then hands you the result in lost MPPs. Why not just have the Allies devote their naval and air ASW assets in the same manner? Think about how the game currently handles it: we are handed a report saying the U-boats did this much damage to our convoys, but, somehow our ASW assets can't find the U-boats. Hmm, strange that, the Germans find our ships, but we can't find the U-boats. It is so one sided; the German player only has to park his sub and hope to hit the lanes, but the Allied player has to physically move his units back and forth. I think it would make more sense for both sides to allocate resources to U-boat/ASW, then, based on the current technology levels there would be the results. The current system is lopsided, in my opinion. A fully abstract system would be fairer to both sides and both sides could then allocate resources or neglect to allocate resources and live with the results. This would eliminate the silliness associated with sending "cruiser" in chase of subs. Perhaps you could "assign" units to the "Battle of the Atlantic" or take them from that role for other operations specifically, such as shore bombardment. You would only need to put cruisers or BB's in the Atlantic if there was a threat of the Germans doing the same. Any non-ASW units assigned to Atlantic duty would be vulnerable to random attack by U-boats. This could be comparable to how in the game we have the "Malta Effect." We do not actually see Malta-based shipping and aerial assets doing their thing, but we do see their results. To continue to have the "Malta Effect" should require the constant investment that was actually made to achieve that effect, the strangulation of Axis supplies to North Africa. A similar thing could be done with strategic bombing. Instead of actually having the physical units on the map, we could have a computer-based modelling of the aerial campaign. The players would invest in ongoing operations and research. As the German, you could have your fighters present on the board as part of the air fleets or locked into the Reich defence mode. Perhaps all of this is too ambitious for this game? Just thought I'd throw this out here for consideration. Would it be possible to do this in this game or would it require such an overhaul as to require a new game engine? I'm guessing that it might be possible in the same manner as the U-boats causing MPP losses. What do you all think?

I'm wondering what you guys think about putting British units into France, such as the BEF? Is it worthwhile in a H2H game or do you just consider France a lost cause anyway and not worth the bother?

Richard Sorge was the name of Stalin's spy.

That is so harsh to Canadians, they probably produced more overall materials than the UK! They had their own units under their own control... Juno Beach was Canadian only. But on the scale that SC2 is played, I can understand them not having tech. </font>

Agreed on that point about Canadian tech. We had crappy stuff at the beginning of the war, but by the end of the war we had tank units with the Sherman Firefly, air units with Lancasters and late mark Spitfires. Something's broken here and needs fixing. Again, I'm afraid we are limited by the game's mechanics.

I checked into that game on recommendation of a friend. It looks huge, but that wasn't really a deterrent. I just wasn't impressed by the military model with its provincial conquest.

Thanks, CP. That's what I thought, but wasn't sure about. Of course, an intelligent Axis player will not approach within visual range, which helps to narrow down the search area when hunting for marauding U-boats.

Switzerland was very jealous of its airspace. There was one incident in which the Swiss air force forced some German intruders to land. What was most ironic in this particular incident was that the Swiss interceptors were ME-109's which had been recently delivered to the Swiss.

How exactly do you use them to "spot" subs?

The Allies planned on entering the Low Countries once their neutrality had been violated by Germany. They tried by diplomatic means to get permission to stage troops there in advance of a German advance, but were denied. Once Germany attacked, the Allies raced forward in an attempt to form a line along the Dyle. The Germans knew about this in advance and exploited it. They hit the LC first, drawing the Allies forward and then several days later they hit the Sedan area with their schwerpunkt, the main penetration force and swept in behind the BEF and mobile elements of the French army. It worked just as they hoped it would, except Hitler meddled and ordered Guderian to halt at the canals opposite Dunkirk. The rest is history.

The Warsaw uprising was in anticipation of the Red Army arriving imminently. Its purpose was to disrupt the Germans and facilitate the liberation of the city. Too bad they didn't know the Red Army had no intentions of entering the city. It is still debated as to whether it was for logistical or political reasons that the Red Army sat there as the Germans wiped out the uprising.

I agree with you on the points you make. It's simply a limitation of the game engine, nothing more. There were a couple of historical incidents which show how you cannot ignore potential operation to naval operations. Operation Cerberus was undertaken by the Germans to move some of their surface units from Brest to Germany. I think they were Prinz Eugen and Scharnhorst, or maybe Gneisenau, can't recall offhand. Anyhow, they managed to pull off this master stroke which supremely embarrassed the British. The Germans timed it just right, sailing at the right moment to take adavantage of darkness. During the daylight hours when they were in the Channel, the Germans rotated flights of fighters over their group. The British were slow to react and the German fighters beat off their feeble attempts. The other incident I refer to is lesser known. A few German E-boats managed to slip past the surface pickets guarding the Channel during Overlord and sank some transports. Not critical to the level of torching the operations, but nevertheless an embarrassment to the Allies. Both incidents show how vital it was to try to control both the skies and sealanes when moving surface units. The planners of Overlord knew this, which is why one of their conditions was the destruction of the Luftwaffe in France. The Allied mastery of the U-boats was another condition. By the summer of 1943 they had managed to best the U-boats and in the year that followed took advantage of that victory to shove convoy after convoy of men and materiel to Britain. Overlord could not have happened if the Germans were able to seriously challenge the landings.

Very well articulated, Robert. In WW2 we saw the progression of the amphibious assault. The Allied landings in Norway were a shambles; raids like Dieppe were a learning tool which showed the necessity of proper support armour, the need for adequate beach reconnaisance and preparatory bombardment. Overlord demonstrated that the Allies had learned their lessons well. As you said, getting ashore was only the first stage. Rommel was perceptive in his apprectiation of what would matter most in any Allied landing: who would win the buildup. If he could hold them on the beaches long enough to deploy his reserves he could force them back into the sea. Eisenhower knew that he must reinforce the landing quicker than the Germans could draw in reserves. Thus the aerial interdiction of the transportation network in France. There had to be the marshalling of supplies in order to sustain the buildup and drive inland. It takes much more than merely throwing some gear and supplies into a boat and dumping them ashore. The Allies were able to load tanks offshore and ride them right onto the beaches. The Germans did not possess this ability in 1940.

That's really the only reason, to stop someone from doing a cheap amphib liberation move.

Let's see, the British are supposed to: Buy corps Deploy fleet at sea around island, naked to air fleets at the same time as they are hunting U-boats Invest in diplomacy to stop Spain coming in Invest in ASW Be aggressive in North Africa Seems like a tall order with their limited resources. Pointing out the inadequacies of the game to handle invasions realistically is crying. Trying to find a resonable means of dealing with amphibs cuts both ways: the Allies had better be able to secure the sealanes for their invasions as well.

Yup, the long awaited patch. Then we'll have a thousand and one more things to moan about.

Well, well someone calls you out on something I feel you should have the facts behind you or be a man and apologize. I value truth before pride, and sometimes I have to eat crow. Better that than to try to defend a wrong position and look the fool for it.

I doubt Hitler had a master plan for Africa. He sent Rommel there to save prestige for the Axis after the British routed the Italians. Rommel took the ball and really ran with it, much further than was his mandate, to restore the status quo. Ultimately, it became a battle of logistics which the British won. Ironic in a way that such a brilliant military mind as Rommel could ignore one of the fundamentals of warfare, supply.

Norway was not a classic amphibious assault. It involved capture of ports by subterfuge and airborne assault, after which the initial troops were reinforced by conventional transport means. Taking Norway by surprise is not the same thing as launching D-Day against defended beaches. Rambo, it was not quite as simplistic as you state. If it was, all the Germans had to do was "put some men in boats and sail them across the channel." When D-day was launched, both ends of the Channel were sealed, by sea and by air. The Germans lost a number of U-boats trying to get near the transports. The reason for this was to prevent an interception, whether by U-boat, E-boat or Luftwaffe. The Germans could not do this in 1940, seal the Channel by sea and by air, and that's why Sealion did not occur. According to the game, the Royal Navy, RAF and Bomber Command all sit at their base drinking tea as the Germans casually saunter across on their barges and tugs, not lifting a finger to interfere. And we are called clowns to point out this inconvenient fact of life? The intention here is not to prevent D-Day, but an unrealistic Sealion as it seems is so easily pulled off in the game.