Jump to content

When are the Brits & CW troops turning up?


Recommended Posts

Just wondering if Any news/plans on giving us the commonwealth troops for Sicily in the near future? I must admit I hadn't thought there would be this long a delay in them showing up as an addon, considering the bulk of them are present in cmbn. (Albeit allowing for re-skinning).

I know you yanks like to think you did it all on your own but us Limeys were there getting shot at too you know ;)

Apologies if I missed any announcements in another thread, just genuinely wondering when we get to use them in the Italian theatre. :)

Ps judging by the amount of vitriol in other threads on here lately, pleased don't read this as any kind of pram spitting demand...just asking the question. Oh and happy christmas to all :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you yanks like to think you did it all on your own but us Limeys were there getting shot at too you know

This is greatly exaggerated abroad. Nearly all serious historians and wargamers are fully aware and appreciative of the contribution of British Commonwealth and Empire troops during the war. After all, somebody had to hold our coats while we whipped the Axis.

;):D

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody told me Russia took part in WW2; just cold war propaganda I suspect.

Of course if you go to some French villages they have a war memorial - "Died in the War 1939-1940." Now if only they had tried a bit harder. Of course against the Italian invasion of Maritime Alpes it was about 5,000 Italian casualties to French 8 (8, not 8,000).

I've no idea why I'm typing this largely irrelevant bollocks other than to play on my new net book thingy. Drone................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the GPW. Totally different thing.

Lol! I have to admit, as biased as Americans are much of the Russian WW2 stuff I've read REALLLY makes it seem like it was Russia vs the World (and They Won)

Of course they did fight 3/4s of the Wehrmacht for most of the war, but there were little things like Lendlease, N Africa, Italy, France, etc to compensate. Oh and the Battle of the Atlantic and Combined Bomber Offensive. Really the thing about WW2 is that it wasn't any one country that really won the war, the war is a lesson in the folly of taking on more enemies (powerful ones too) than you have friends, if anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The Battle of the Atlantic was a really big deal. If Germany could have won that, they might have had a genuine shot at winning the war. Not a sure thing, mind, but it would have significantly improved the odds for them.

Michael

Russia would have still won the war I think but if Germany had won the battle of the Atlantic then she would have won the battle of the Mediterranean and the US and Britain would have not been able to invade Italy or France soon enough to deter Russia and Russia would have wound up with all of Europe. Maybe that's why the US got into it as soon as it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia would have still won the war I think...

Not at all a sure thing if you mean the Red Army making it all the way to Berlin. Without the Allies winning the Battle of the Atlantic, Lend-Lease dries up. That doesn't kill the Soviet war effort, but it may trim it back a critical amount. I think they might well be successful at evicting the Axis from Soviet territory, but in the process would have suffered such losses that they would have had to agree to an armistice.

With the USSR out of the war, the Western Allies also likely would have had to agree to an armistice. Result: both sides lick their wounds and prepare for the next round, which might have lasted into the 1950s or even beyond depending on when it started.

The wild card here is what happens to Japan. If Germany abandons it to its fate, likely Japan surrenders about when it historically did after the A-bomb is dropped. The existence of the Bomb provokes Germany into a frenzy of development of new research on the subject although whether they would be up to the industrial requirements of building one while working on more conventional weaponry seems remote. For the Allies, the temptation to start the war back up once they have produced a sufficient number of bombs plus the air forces to deliver them before Germany can would be enormous.

If Germany stands by Japan (unlikely in my view) the Pacific war ends in stalemate before the Bomb can be deployed. Perhaps it remains an Allied secret until they are ready to be unleashed on all the Axis.

It would have been a very strange world from the one I grew up in.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Battle of the Atlantic were ever truly at risk of being lost I expect we would simply have ordered units of the Pacific Fleet to head east. Japan wasn't going to threaten the US and the naval force required to keep them at arm's length from Australia would have been significantly different than that required to prosecute the island hopping campaign.

I think the way the war went was a best case scenario for the axis. Any alternative history isn't going to really increase their odds of winning without being hopelessly unrealistic. For example, part of the golden era of the U boats was simply how long it took the US to truly implement convoys and adapt to a war footing. When the U boats hit the eastern seaboard, the US was still in denial mode with no shoreline blackouts etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it was best case scenario in that they usually did fairly well conducting stupid plans - but if Hitler had followed the 'Never fight a land war in Asia' adage and had studied Napoleon's invasion of Russia perhaps he wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union. IMO that was the totally fatal shot for the Third Reich within several years. The A-Bomb and all that perhaps later, who knows but invading the Soviet Union was it. The second fatal decision IMO is declaring war on America, which independent of Barbarossa would have done them in eventually as well. However key of course was the alliance by fighting both sides - it's just like a bar fight. If you're alone the odds are greatly increased of it not escalating or ending as badly as if with a bunch of friends because you dont want to shame yourself, or let them down, etc etc. Even the Unconditional Surrender declaration was made at a meeting of the great powers at Casablanca in 42. Of course I know you know all of this... What I always wondered at was why Hitler honored the Axis pact with Japan when Japan didn't really honor it with Germany and invade Siberia in 41. A very strong case can be made of a forced armistice with Germany and the USSR by the taking of Moscow twice in 41, in August before Hitler split AG Center's armor, and at some unforseen date if Japan had invaded Siberia and tied down the Siberian troops used for Operation Typhoon. However the effects would probably be better of course if Japan invaded sooner and the circumstances leading to Typhoon had never happened, because by the time it was launched the Germans weren't taking Moscow anyways. All the same, it just doesn't seem very Realpolitik to declare war on the US needlessly to follow suit with Japan who didnt help you out 6 months before. A few sunken U-boats and lend lease don't seem like grounds to jump to that with their hands as full as they were. However then again Im not Hitler and it's 70 years later, maybe he was truly pissed the f*ck off about the US sending Britain supplies and protecting half the Atlantic convoy route...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Battle of the Atlantic were ever truly at risk of being lost I expect we would simply have ordered units of the Pacific Fleet to head east.

That would have been the rational thing to do. But American voters had blood in their eyes for Japan. After the middle of 1942 with Sledgehammer and Roundup indefinitely postponed, King had just about convinced Marshal to abandon the Germany first strategy and go after Japan. Roosevelt would of course have had something to say about that, but he was a political animal and sensitive to which way the wind was blowing (it was an election year for Congress), and furthermore reluctant to go against the advice of his military leaders. I don't think he would have allowed the British to go down while doing nothing, but he wasn't given to knowingly making futile gestures either. It might have been a harder decision to make than it looks from here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3/4 of US supplies to Russia arrived via the pacific ports and through Persia.

And the stuff arriving via Persia first had to cross the Atlantic. But keep in mind that everything reaching the British Isles also had to cross the Atlantic. Without securing the North Atlantic, no Bolero and no Overlord.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...