Jump to content

Any Chance for a New Afrikakorps game?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BluecherForward said:

My point is that the British took the position along the coast - the U.S. forces agreed to take the inland position - without control of ports (later the U.S. established a Cold War position in Bremen/Bremerhaven, but this was not part of the original plan). Thus, the British controlled the port areas and the U.S. was dependent upon that control - even post-war. This meant that the U.S. would have a strong strategic interest in British stability even after the war was won. This was typical of Churchill's grand strategic outlook - trying to get as much out of the post-war world as he could, in spite of the British Empire's debilitated condition.

That's a really interesting observation which I've never heard made before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a very good point, and one that is often overlooked. During war, lots of chances are taken, usually based on incomplete information. Some generals are brilliant, most are at least decently com

How did he put up with Patton assaulting an American servicemen or Bradley's childish temper tantrums all the time? He was mindful of the fact he was the boss of all these men and that he had to be re

This is such a fascinating period or warfare - and history. Enormous leaps in technology, equipment, and tactics; plus such a variety of forces and organizational types. Would love to see a re-working

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Freyberg said:

That's a really interesting observation which I've never heard made before.

Winston was a rare grand strategic thinker.  Here is a very good book abut him that I can recommend.

Image result for The Last Lion

To understand what was happening to the British Empire at that time (taking the long view), I recommend this excellent work:

Image result for The collapse of british power barnett

Cheers and happy reading!

Edited by BluecherForward
wording
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BluecherForward said:

Winston was a rare grand strategic thinker.  Here is a very good book abut him that I can recommend.

To understand what was happening to the British Empire at that time (taking the long view), I recommend this excellent work:

Cheers and happy reading!

Thanks - I'll keep an eye out for them. I enjoyed Correlli Barnett's book on the the generals of the Desert War. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any particular issue with this, but it seems logical that since Great Britain had the largest navy and merchant navy in the region and itself was the source for most supplies at least at that time, it was most logical for it to have authority over the ports in northern Europe.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Erwin said:

Great Britain had the largest navy and merchant navy in the region and itself was the source for most supplies at least at that time

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. The U.S. had the preponderance of for forces in Theater. It controlled the greater sea lanes, albeit in very close - and effective partnership - with the Royal Navy. It was bombing Germany in cooperation with RAF Bomber Command (ever been to East Anglia?).  The U.S. fielded many times the number of troops that the British Empire deployed in Northwest Europe in 1944-45 and should have had an interest in directly controlling the logistical train to the Continent. Then there was the massive Lend-Lease support to the British Commonwealth forces and nations - making British forces more dependent upon the U.S., than the other way around. Ask Winston, he was quite aware of U.S. material dominance of the alliance. So what happened?

Basically, the British senior military leadership was more practiced at the art of staffing things - and had all the answers, for the most part, when it came to key meetings. The U.S. wanted to win the war  - period - and then go home. The British, especially under Churchill, were interested in the long-term grand strategic impact of military decision-making.

Remember, the British Empire was about to go to the aid of Finland in the Winter War with the Soviet Union (that is what the Narvik operation was originally about). I think Churchill knew who he was dealing with when negotiating with Stalin. I am not so sure that Roosevelt did.

"During the early stages of World War II, the British and French Allies made a series of proposals to send troops to assist Finland against the Soviet Union in the Winter War, which started on 30 November 1939. The war was a consequence of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which put Finland into the Soviet sphere of influence. The plans involved the transit of British and French troops and equipment through neutral Norway and Sweden."                                                                           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

So while the Cold War came as a great disappointment to the United States, I do not think the general outlines of that falling out with Stalin  were a great surprise to Winston Churchill. He was always thinking several steps down the road.

image.jpeg.96dbd52f4e1085244e4f1fb8a44011d2.jpeg

 

Edited by BluecherForward
clarification
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh yeah... I have been to East Anglia - had a lovely gf there actually.  

Still seems a lot easier to ship stuff from the UK (safe ports) via all sorts of (smaller ships) to Europe mainland.  Had I been in charge of logistics that would have been the first thing I did anyhow...

 

 

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erwin said:

I have been to East Anglia

I hope you visited the Imperial War Museum Duxford, while you were there, very educational. The American Military Cemetery in Cambridge (also known as the Madingley Cemetery) is also an eye-opener. Then, of course, there is the famous Eagle Pub in Cambridge.

"During World War II, RAF and American airmen used candles to burn graffiti of their names and nicknames on the pub’s ceiling during their evenings out. The graffiti was preserved and tourists visit the pub to catch a glimpse of this wartime form of art."

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BluecherForward said:

I hope you visited the Imperial War Museum Duxford, while you were there, very educational. The American Military Cemetery in Cambridge (also known as the Madingley Cemetery) is also an eye-opener.

Unfortunately not.  Good idea.  Hope I can make it up there (also to Bovington).  I recall that London features the best museums in the world incl The War Museum - but those were schoolboy trips. I imagine all is different now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flintlock63 said:

Could not agree more. I still have memories of playing the old Avalon Hill Tobruk  game which introduced me into the details of armored combat and weapons. Not to mention this game system really does vehicles and guns the best I have ever seen. 

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the main point.

Have you ever tried The Operational Art of War IV? They have a map and set up similar to the old Avalon Hill Africa Corps board game. I am waiting for a sale, but I used to play TOAW III and enjoyed the Africakorps scenario.

How about this one?

Vintage AFRIKA KORPS Board Game 1964 Avalon Hill Company WWII

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the base games in the CM2 series (incl. BS and CMSF/CMSF2) series start with US forces (except RT), this is a clear BF policy and it makes financial sense.

The other nations MUST come later AFTER the US in modules for which you have to pay extra. Afrika won't happen unless it starts at Torch, then you can have US forces in the base module. Make an addon module for the earlier battles and CW forces, perhaps exclude the other nations entirely from the base game. As you know if you bought Normandy, Italy, Blitzkrieg, only US forces fought in world war 2. If you want a more historically accurate balance to the nations, you MUST pay more, otherwise you must accept this unconscious form of american historical revisionism. You see their predicament?

Link to post
Share on other sites

True or not that's a pretty narrow view to take on the series' prospects. The audience for wargaming isn't huge here by any means, and probably pars rather well customers in Europe of which i'm sure UK customers are a relevant slice. In any case, I as an American have no inclination to weigh the games for purchase based on the presence of US forces in it. I doubt i'm really alone on that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

In any case, I as an American have no inclination to weigh the games for purchase based on the presence of US forces in it. I doubt i'm really alone on that.

I view the games as all part of one set - World War II European Theater. I have every WWII title/add-on and I am sure that I will purchase any new one that comes out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Erwin said:

Unfortunately not.  Good idea.  Hope I can make it up there (also to Bovington).  I recall that London features the best museums in the world incl The War Museum - but those were schoolboy trips. I imagine all is different now.

The IWM is shocking now - Duxford however is excellent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a new Barborossa mod more than Africa. Even if there had been no second front the Soviets still would have prevailed

and got to Berlin to knock out the Third Reich. As an American no amount of bias is great enough to deny this fact. The war was won in the East.

Everything else was just a sideshow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, J Bennett said:

We need a new Barborossa mod more than Africa. Even if there had been no second front the Soviets still would have prevailed

and got to Berlin to knock out the Third Reich. As an American no amount of bias is great enough to deny this fact. The war was won in the East.

Everything else was just a sideshow.

Without Lend-Lease the Soviets would have lost - regardless of a Second Front.

"Now they say that the allies never helped us, but it can't be denied that the Americans gave us so many goods without which we wouldn't have been able to form our reserves and continue the war," Soviet General Georgy Zhukov said after the end of WWII.

"We didn’t have explosives, gunpowder. We didn’t have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives. And how much sheet steel they gave us! How could we have produced our tanks without American steel? But now they make it seem as if we had an abundance of all that. Without American trucks we wouldn’t have had anything to pull our artillery with." https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/03/14/lend-lease-how-american-supplies-aided-the-ussr-in-its-darkest-hour_575559

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers; and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles...

We have also sent to the Soviets about 350 locomotives, 1,640 flat cars, and close to half a million tons of rails and accessories, axles, and wheels, all for the improvement of the railways feeding the Red armies on the Eastern Front. For the armies themselves we have sent miles of field telephone wire, thousands of telephones, and many thousands of tons of explosives. And we have also provided machine tools and other equipment to help the Russians manufacture their own planes, guns, shells, and bombs.

We have supplied our allies with large quantities of food. The Soviet Union alone has received some 3,000,000 tons."

https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-13-how-shall-lend-lease-accounts-be-settled-(1945)/how-much-of-what-goods-have-we-sent-to-which-allies

This is not even including the immense amount of material sent by The British Commonwealth.

*All this being said, I would also like to see an updated Barbarossa, just would like to see Afrikakorps first.

 

Edited by BluecherForward
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BluecherForward said:

Without Lend-Lease the Soviets would have lost - regardless of a Second Front.

"

 

 

Um that's true but does not nullify my post. It in fact strengthens the position that the war was decided in the East. The Western Allies knew it was crucial

to keep the Soviets in the war or Europe would never be liberated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BluecherForward said:

would also like to see an updated Barbarossa, just would like to see Afrikakorps first.

+1

If we ever get to earlier CMFI, there should be sufficient models etc to do a decent CM Afrika Korps - even if it's just a module.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J Bennett said:

The Western Allies knew it was crucial

to keep the Soviets in the war or Europe would never be liberated.

I was merely pointing out that the Soviets did not accomplish their victory on their own - as the Soviet propagandists implied for many years. It is indisputable that the lion's share of German forces were always deployed in the east. And "Europe" was not really liberated (unless you are referring to the period 1989-91) - one occupying terror regime simply replaced another in eastern Europe. Ironic that the British Commonwealth went to war originally to prevent Poland from being subjugated by Nazi Germany, but ended up acquiescing to Poland's subjugation by Stalin's Soviet Union.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J Bennett said:

Um that's true but does not nullify my post. It in fact strengthens the position that the war was decided in the East. The Western Allies knew it was crucial

to keep the Soviets in the war or Europe would never be liberated.

It is not true. The Soviets had defeated the Germans at the end of the Stalingrad campaign at which point only a small percentage of the Lend Lease aid had arrived. Sure it helped, it helped a lot, and without Lend Lease it the would of taken the Soviets much longer to defeat Germany but it did not win the war for the Soviets.

P.S. But since this is a North Africa thread.  I refer you for a continuation of the subject to this thread-just one of the previous threads on the subject.

 

 

Edited by Sequoia
P.S.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's odd. I read some of the Correlli Barnett books  years ago. There are four on the decline of british power over 100 years. I think I've read three. I disagree with his political perspective. @BluecherForwardI just added them to my Amazon wishlist this week. Long out of print but reissued on kindle; what a  coincidence.

On great military museums,  Bovington is excellent.  Especially Tiger Day, to see 131 moving in the arena. You do need to book up in advance -it gets sold out. Sunshine, drinking beer and AFVs - a pleasure. 

I also recommend IWM Duxford in Cambridgeshire (as mentioned) which has AFVs as well as aircraft. The US Aircrew memorial I found very moving. I don't want to say any more because if you go there it is a surprise which gives you a chilly recognition about the sacrifices they made.

Edited by JulianJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...