The Italians

[GroupNorth]

Great discussion!

There's so many truths here, and they can co-exist and mingle.

#1 A conservative estimate says the Russians killed 10 million out of the 13 million 'combat-related' Germans killed in WWII, however alternative estimates are no doubt higher.

#2 Without the Allied supplies and war operations from 1943-45, the Soviets would NOT have broken the back of the Third Reich so thoroughly. It might devolved into a semi-static war of attrition in Poland, mutual exhaustion possibly leading to a conditional peace in Russia's favour.

#3 The Archangel supplies were important, perhaps more diplomatically than anything. However, my readings tell me that the massive shipments via Iran gave the USSR the majority of their war imports.

Hundreds of thousands of American vehicles and American spam turned the Red Army into a mobile force that could echelon very well.

#4 Some argue that Allied Strategic bombing was useless, mainly diplomatic to appease Stalin. I totally disagree. Allied bombing, while being mostly inaccurate, still dealt Germany a horrendous economic blow. Even though German production was on the rise, it is completely evident that German production would have spiked far higher had no such bombing occurred.

A vast amount of resources was dedicated to fight the bombing campaign. Too much, it seems. Factories had to be rebuilt, then eventually placed underground with costly bunkering. Workers' homes and stores were flattened. Morale eventually fizzled as entire German cities literally disappeared in flames. Many squadrons of Luftwaffe were pinned down in the Reich. Thousands of AA batteries and millions of shells were likewise diverted away from the Russian Front. Something like 1 million (conservative estimate) German combatants were dedicated to fighting the Bombers and repairing the damage.

[Supreme Axis]

Lavochin in my simulators is considered one of the most deadly aircraft available. Some tend to want to outlaw them. The Yak, can dogfight<easy to vulch at low alts>. I never read much on their armour. I know it outclassed the Germans. The German Panzer 4 sucks. Short range, low ammo and still not as good as a Char1Bis or Somua-35<medium Frog Tank> I wonder about experience? Didn't the Russians get some in the Far East vs the Japanese in 1938?

The p-51 the fastest and the Spitfire the most powerful overall... Though really only for particular situations. For a war of attrition on a front were mechanical gadgets aren't as important in snow, ice, mud. Whatever, I wonder... Maybe in some ways it benifited the Russians enough to even them up. Regardless of the weapon used an experienced Sherman or Hurricane pilot will knock the socks off any opposing enemy. Regardless of what they're up against. Mind you in the end you may have to drive the Sherman home only damaging the enemy.

Anyone ever heard of an Elephant tank?<another wasted resource> Think the Germans got a little spooked? I assume the Russians got good after a year or two of losing. i.e. Kursk. I assume they got real good at busting tanks and taking the line!

On a last note on quality, France fell due to lack of hindsight. They had the Blensheim, the Somuas/Chars/Renualts. Good rifles, I don't know about Tommy Guns. Though BEF had them, and they were better than the Machinepistol. The Germans only had 2 great things... IMHO fast moving armor, and the 88s

They beat their enemy with #s...They sacrificed a lot of aircraft during the invasion of France. Hitler jumped when he won, off the ground... He was amazed!

If I went back in history and I was France. I would have executed a few million people for creating Vichy and for letting the Germans win so easily! Stalin was a neccessary evil. Trosky was inspiring! Didn't Stalin's successor poison him? Wasn't he known to have two webbed toes and another aspect that signaled the sign of the Devil in Eastern Orthodox Church?

[Supreme Axis]

Right now, I'd take Zhukov with a million men from their period into Iraq and I'd give them a fair chance of kicking butt. Why not?

[jon_j_rambo]

Give me a crew from CNN & I'll take prisoners.

[GroupNorth]

I would have executed a few million people for creating Vichy and for letting the Germans win so easily!

The amount of French colloboration was shamefully high. There were many Fascists already in France, and many people happily handed over every Jew and other 'bad person' right to the Nazis. French resistance existed in the countryside and spies lurked in the cities, but it was somewhat pathetic in comparison to other conquered nations, which resisted hard.

French apologists say France simply had no choice. Others disagree, sometimes sharply. Ultraconservative Vichy was not simply a Nazi creation. It allowed the old guard in France to settle a lot old scores on their own countrymen; and to restructure France in colder, meaner ways. The Vichyians strangely believed that France would be a great new partner in the Aryan hegemony. Of course, as France was looted and its workers kidnapped, these sentiments slowly vanished.

England rightfully had little confidence in France, right from day 1, or day -1000. It might have been a different story if the English were given supreme Allied control in 1939. At least they'd organize a large strategic reserve, which obviously to their peril, the French insisted they did not need.

[BriantheWise]

I think it's a game design issue. In this game, all the MMP's are linear and there is really no calculation for industrial improvement.

Clash of Steel did this relatively well, but a bit preponderant.

I won't go into this into detail, but I think, without dismissing the balance and excellence of this game, there should be a larger measure of racheting up (and racheting down) of the powers involved, inclusive of the events that took place.

This is the Italian channel, so in respect to this country, the Italians did start out somewhat industrious, relatively speaking and then lost in north africa, and won no where else. John Jersey could (and would) describe it better. But the whole war effort collapsed pretty quick.

I'm not sure how better I would do it, but the Italian losses (or victories), would be better reflected in adjusted MMP output. Say, for example the base is 100, but as a country loses, it's effectiveness reduces, counterbalanced by their increased industriousness (didn't happen in Italy, but it did happen in Germany and most certainly in Russia). As the tide changes, the effectiveness increases, multiplied by the industriousness.

I'm just stating a very basic matrix, but it would reflect things like the sudden output of Russia, and American, And even Germany, while, Britain (tired), and Italy (disillusioned), began to play less of a picture.

Just thoughts. I don't have the matrix for the game concept as yet.

[JerseyJohn]

GroupNorth:

"There's so many truths here, and they can co-exist and mingle. . . ."

"#4 Some argue that Allied Strategic bombing was useless, mainly diplomatic to appease Stalin. I totally disagree. Allied bombing, while being mostly inaccurate, still dealt Germany a horrendous economic blow. Even though German production was on the rise, it is completely evident that German production would have spiked far higher had no such bombing occurred."

"A vast amount of resources was dedicated to fight the bombing campaign. Too much, it seems. Factories had to be rebuilt, then eventually placed underground with costly bunkering. Workers' homes and stores were flattened. Morale eventually fizzled as entire German cities literally disappeared in flames. Many squadrons of Luftwaffe were pinned down in the Reich. Thousands of AA batteries and millions of shells were likewise diverted away from the Russian Front. Something like 1 million (conservative estimate) German combatants were dedicated to fighting the Bombers and repairing the damage."

Excellent posting. I think hundreds of thousands of vehicles might be a bit high but certainly we sent a great many to Russia.

In point number 4 you state very well what I believe to be the case, including the figure of at least 1,000,000 tied up due to the Allied Strategic Bombing campaign. I think that exact number was stated by Albert Speer and quoted in The World At War episode "Reap the Whirlwind" -- I believe that was the title, from a quote by Air Marshal Bomber Harris. In any event, you're on the money.

In your other posting, regarding the Vichy French. The vast majority of people share your sentiment. Perhaps you're right. My basic feeling is they were attempting to salvage something from a totally hopeless situation.

Hitler kept dangling promises in front of Petain, including the return of occupied territory and the return of French POWs.

The collaborators who hunted down Jews and took revenge on their personal enemies are beneath contempt.

But certainly, if the Vichy had thrown their lot in with Germany and declared war on Britain and combined their fleet and naval stores with Italy's in the Mediteranean, they could have gotten much more from the Axis, including Paris and most of the occupied part of their country. What other government would have endured an attack like the one on their fleet at Mers el Kibur without declaring war on the attacker?

[ January 01, 2003, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

SupremeAxis

The Elefant was a tank destroyer based on the Pz VI. Hitler rushed it into production along with the regular Panther so they could take part in the mid-1943 Kursk Offensive. An early oversight was not equiping it wigh machine guns, making it useless without infantry protection. Both were plagued with mechanical problems. The Panther's were largely solved but the Elephant remained prone to breakdowns and was less effective than other German heavy tank destroyers based on the Panther and Tiger tanks.

[JerseyJohn]

BriantheWise

Only one point of disagreement: JerseyJohn could not have done it better. Enjoyed your posting very much, thanks for the good word and it's mutual.

[Supreme Axis]

I gotta agree, the French were looking to cut their losses! Germans are good soldiers, they've got more industry and more natural resources and a higher population than France. After Bismark and the formation of the German Empire<franco-Prussian War> there was nolonger any doubt as to the "main" European Power. In WW1 they needed Brits, Yankees and Russians to help defeat them. As well as the next War. France is a has been Power. 1800s they were the Masters of Europe.... Perhaps like the British one becomes overconfident.

I have heard that the French and British Navies were as high as 20 to 30 battleships. I know that the Germans weren't allowed anywhere near this figure. That it would've taken till 1946 for the Kriegsmarine to match the Royal British Navy. Ships are expensive and they take time to produce. It shocks me that the Italians have such a huge navy. I doubt it was as effective as it's made out to be in this game. Probably spent 90% of the time hiding in the Adriatic Sea.

BlitzKrieg, and Aerial warfare altered the face of Modern Combat. No more stalemates in trenches and no more Isolationism when long range bombers can reach your homeland and destroy all your ballbearing production.. So that you must rely on Sweden, or the Swiss for such valuable parts. The Germans were industrious. They would assemble parts at various factories so that if you bombed one you wouldn't destroy the entire production of say a Fighter Plane. Then, they would assemble them! I know that despite the bombing raids, they did mantain their Wartime production. If the difference was the loss of <100,000 airmen> vs Kursk, Stalingrad, Rostov. It saved lives. I have to admit to myself though it was Britian's and US's sole responsability to open a Western Front Sooner than 1944! It would have saved more lives than had been lost in the previous 4 years of war. It would have been costly in 1943, but it would have been achievable in my opinion.

We all know that Hitler was lucky! He got a lot of luck, his own General Staff didn't believe in him at first. They planned to topple him. Only his early victories stabilized his position and then his psycho-attitude....

P.S. Give me Rommel, a thousand tanks, a million men on the mainland of England... What would you have in 1941?

[Comrade Trapp]

Supreme Axis....I am looking for someone to play tonight, you up for it?

[Supreme Axis]

The Elephant Tank looks Deadly! Couple of Suicide Sappers and Boom! If we put in percentages what did Hitler waste in his Special Weapons program? Purifying Europe Racially? When many of the Jews were specialists much needed for a war effort, even some veterans of the Great War! Dunkirk and the B.O.B. This guy was pathetic! I think the War was in the bag for a tactician....at least for increasing the size of your Empire from medium to huge.

[GroupNorth]

Oops, my bad. The USA did not send 100ks of vehicles. I believe they sent somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 trucks (mostly studas?). That's my attempt to remember a lecture on a Monday morning, 5 years ago.

SEA LION?

Rommel and 1 million Germans landing in England for a 1941 Sea Lion? Well, anyone's guess is good about the outcome. Call me an anglophile, but I think:

1. The Royal Navy and the RAF would have inflicted ghastly losses on a German amphibious assault, undoubtedly much much worse than the D-Day landings. I'm thinking 50% casualty rate in the first week, which is unthinkable.

2. The Wehrmacht believed that 10 divisions (with 2 Panzer?) would be suitable for establishing strong beachheads. The problem was, the Wehrmacht had no confidence in such an amphibious gamble. They were masters of land warfare, not this.

3. Horrible intelligence reports in late 1940 claimed that Britain had several home divisions when really they only had 2 or 3 understrength divisions left and some militia. Britain would have lost all conventional battles inland, if only the Germans could secure beachheads first.

4. The Kriegsmarine thought Sea Lion was a grim possibility, but wisely contended that the RN would sink troop barges and improvised ships by the score. Divebombers and Spitfires would wreak total chaos, despite Luftwaffe numbers. But they did warm to the hype of Sea Lion, because of course it gave them more funding for the future Z-plan.

5. As embryonic plans for Sea Lion were initiated in late 1940, the Kriegsmarine's anxious counsel proved true. Any concentrations of landing craft assembled in French ports (mostly slow barges) were quickly acquired and raided hard by UK fliers. The Brits were all too aware of what was going on, with recon planes and spies.

6. Of course, Hitler had 2 alternative gambles by the end of 1940. And he took the crazier one. Thank God he didn't listen to Admiral Raeder, who wanted Hitler to seize the Canary Islands, all of the Mediterranean, as well as Egypt and Iraq. It would have brought the UK to a conditional surrender, allowing for an all-out Barbarossa in 1942-43.

[Supreme Axis]

Regarding the Battle of Britian:

The Germans were close to crushing the RAF, which would have given free range on any British Ships operating in the Channel or nearby. I don't know how anti-aircraft holds up against Stukas and He-111s but I assume if they would have destroyed the RAF on time. Even with the weak fuel capacity of the 109. You could get across! Be a great time for Russia to launch a war if prepared...wouldn't you feel being the last Major European Power that it would be your obligation?

Then again if the Brits pulled all ships home! They had a massive Navy. It would have been costly but as Cuba was the finger pointing at America so was Britian the knife in the Theird Reich's back.

[Point]

"When many of the Jews were specialists much needed for a war effort"

True, I'm not 100% sure on this but the lead scientist in german rocketry was a Jew but pardoned for his work.

[GroupNorth]

My readings suggestion that the Wehrmacht's only available plan for a possible Sea Lion was to tug the majority of their forces by very slow moving barges.

Lighter sea vessels, some merchant freighters, and liners would help for transport of men without equipment. Commandos and German 'marines' would also try to secure harbours. The Luftwaffe would attempt complete air superiority. Etc. Etc.

Point #1 is, sinking one nearly static barge could amount to a 100% kill on an entire battalion. Torpedo bombers away! Or imagine seeing 30 Panzers and 50 halftracks suddenly go under the waves, after a BB salvo?

#2 Bad weather also was a sincere consideration.

#3 The RAF and RN were disrupting every concentration of barges and other craft, on the French and Belgian coastlines.

The Germans could have landed, but they would have paid an enormous price, having no amphibious training/traditions, no naval superiority, and an air superiority that could be punctured due to lack of radar and longer distances to fly.

It is also conceivable that Roosevelt would have pushed the USA much closer to war, before Pearl Harbour, if Sea Lion were attempted in Fall 1940. A USN taskforce probably would have steamed to the Channel to wait to be fired upon (thus sparking the USA's 'unprovoked' entry into the European war). After all, Roosevelt wanted war, one way or another.

[ January 02, 2003, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: GroupNorth ]

[JerseyJohn]

Group North and Supreme Axis

A little partying, a hangover, and next thing I know you guys have a bunch of great postings and I'm left in the dust! Great Postings.

Impossible for me to get to most of the things you guys have been covering, all of them fine subjects, but I'll hit SeaLion briefly. Still a bit bleary-eyed so I have to make it short.

Absolutely right about the Germans capability to ferry their troops across the English Channel, it was hopeless. The only thing I believe might have worked was a Crete style campaign initiated as soon as France surrendered.

Assuming their paratroopers were recovered, reorganized, and there were enough of them -- very, verb big assumptions for mid-1940. I think they should have established indesputable air supremecy over the South-Eastern corner of Britain and dropped their airborne units, seized local airfields and flown in reinforcing infantry. They could have fanned out, captured other airfields and controlled all of Southern England, the Channel and the North Sea approaches.

At that point ferrying troops across on full sized ships to controled ports like Dover, Hampton, Plymouth, Portsmouth, etc., should have been possible and, once the Germans were across and in stregnth there would have been no stopping them. Not that the Brits, so soon after Dunkirk, would have had much to stop them with, other than the Royal Tank Corps with it's sub-standard Matilldas and ad hoc units armed primarily with scavanged small arms.

It wouldn't have mattered much whether it was led by Rommel (unlikely as he was only a divisional commander at the time, soon to be promoted) or one of the others, any German Fieldmarshall would have won that campaign, assuming they got the armies across successfully.

Gerd von Runstedt and von Bock were both exceptional leaders while the young bloods like Guderian and von Manstein were among the very best with the already mentioned Rommel. By late Autumn that opportunity had passed as the Brits were rearmed and entrenching that very area.

Of course, at that particular time no army on earth thought in terms of large scale airborne operations, but a year later the Crete campaign was of comparable size (at least the airdrop part of it) and the later Allied campaigns involved much larger numbers of paratroopers -- most notably the pre-doomed Arnhem operation.

SupremeAxis: I hope you go back to your first posting here and rename this forum, perhaps something like The Italians and Some Totally Unrelated Issues! That way we might be able to come back and find some of these gems later.

[ January 02, 2003, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Supreme Axis]

Jersey John!

Definitely a need to change the topic name. Got carried away!

Yeah, it's true there isn't much to say for a German Naval transport. OCEAN LINERS??? lol Crete did prove German Paratroopers were deadly and that you could use them and capture ports<was Norway a large para op?> and ship the troops in. Hitler made too many decisions for Sea Lion to be feesible. I think he was a 3 as far as General... This game should have expensive elite Paratrooper Corps. The Luftwaffe nearly had the RAF in submission<without any airsupport whatsoever and vulnerable coastal batteries<ships>, after that a bloody battle to get a beachhead, airfields and fortified positions. England was fairly industrial it would have fed Germany well to Conquor Russia.

I remeber travelling the English countryside and seeing so many pillboxes. Thousands, they did fear Hitler was comming.

[JerseyJohn]

SupremeAxis

Those pillboxes are testament to how real a possibility the British themselves considered it to be.

Once the Germans had a successful air drop and gained some channel ports it would have been a simple matter to bring troops and heavy equipment across the channel using steamers that were cought in port when the Germans marched in; other ships could have been brought south from Belgium, Holland and through the Keil Canal. The Luftwaffe controlled those lanes and Royal Navy interdiction would have been suicidal. The RAF, having already being driven back from the coast, would have been stretched too far to be in effective range. Also, having lost Southern England, the famous radar system would have been broken, leaving them largely blind.

In Norway most of the German troops entered port as passengers in steamers which were then docked and they just walked down the gangplanks and took over! After the initial shock, the Norwegians began fighting in the hinterlands and a few shore batteries damaged German warships, but the country was really lost during the first few days. German planes operated out of captured airfields.

Germany incurred some pointless naval losses, mainly destroyers, when Hitler issued an order for the the ships in the Narvik (I believe it was Narvik, it may have been Trondheim or some other northern location)fjiord to remain and give support to the troops they'd successfully offloaded. The ships were sealed in a cul de sac when the larger British vessels arrived and were sunk as though it were target practice.

Paratroopers were used in Norway but I'm not certain of the extent or numbers. As German air cover proceeded north the Allied fleet was forced to withdraw, having first lost an aircraft carrier to land based bombers. At that point the surviving British and French troops were either evacuated or captured.

[Supreme Axis]

Though The OP Sea Lion was a Gambit, it was better than barbarossa<the way it was planned> History would have turned out differently with the General Staff more in control than a mentally detiorating Hitler.

Italy Military losses 330,000 and Civilian Losses 80,000

Not a bad contribution but definitely a Axis Minor.

Yugoslavia Military-300,000 and Civilian-<many slavs gypsies jews>1,300,000

[JerseyJohn]

It's surprising no documentaries, or at least none that I know of, have been made about WW II in the Balkans generally and in Yugoslavia specifically. The general public knows nothing about it.

What was the figure Mussolini gave as wanting to go to the negotiating table with in 1940, 10,000 Italian dead, or something like that? Well, he got his wish and then some, though he wasn't around to conduct any negotiations when the smoke cleared. Had he survived, I wonder if he'd have been considered a war criminal? Personally I think the Allies should have awarded him a medal posthumously for aiding their cause.

Regarding the earlier discussions on the Battle of Britain. Yes, German aircraft losses were much higher than Britain's, but it isn't considered that some of that was due to ground fire and planes were also lost attacking coastal traffic.

I agree that even with Goering's idiocy and it's misdirection at the top, the Luftwaffe came very close to winning the fight. Properly managed, say Kesselring or Sperille had been given free reign to do things their way, Germany might well have succeded despite the radar, which they soon became aware of and began devising counter measures for when Goering suddenly decided it was more important to flatten major cities than pave the way for landings in the Channel.

[ January 02, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Supreme Axis]

The Serbians get a small bit of acknowledgement in the back of a history text.

While Italy is in all in the history books. For what? I think it would have to be their Navy, and German supplied troops, and Officers trained by foreign German Advisors. Kinda like Germany's Bish. I'd say Italians would win by suicidal battles, perhaps... If I ran Italy I would have had to conquor one nation, besides Ethiopia that actually had 20th century arms.<then be considered a major player> Then again, France... Didn't give a great contribution.<they never had a chance either> Though who would you rather have as an ally?

The English channel is rough seas, the man in control of that Op, woudl have had to been a genius. The Brits were ready enough to fight the first columns or two. Their Matilda's were excellent tanks, not enough of them. Given they were the up-to-date ones. I doubt I'd fly a 109 vs a Spitfire, faster better turn radius. Longer flight time...more armament... Only pro on the messerschmits side is it's climb. Great scramble fighter... I saw a German pilot on Discovery hop in both aircraft and he said the room in the Spitifire was unbelievable. You couldn't breath in German fighters. ALSO another pro on the German side was their aerial combat experience. Spanish Civil War. Destroying France and Poland.

I know Britian was short on men more than aircraft, so they had mobilized fairly well by the time Germany would have had a clear shot at them. The Airfieds were vital and they pounded them out of existence. Though the Brits put em back together while they wasted time on the British Cities.

Also the Germans had excellent gliders, setup and ready. Definitely was thought over, and overturned by Hitler personally a true blunder. Leadership again! Fear! I think that held him back personal blunder would have made him look bad in front of his Generals. As few had much belief in him at the onset of war. Supply was bad for the UK in '40 they had a hell of a time beating German U-Boats. Stop gloating over a victory in France and bringing the 190s into full production would've made a turn in things regardless of previous mistakes.

I think like a Big Cat, the German Staff probably feared water too. I say you sink or swim! When this war is chalked up defeat of Britian in any scenario early enough is the end of the game and fairly historically accurate.

[GroupNorth]

Hitler had the most fabulous army ever fielded in Fall 1940. He didn't want to see half of it drown.

JJ's correct, though, a rapid Crete-like adventure right after the fall of France might have worked.

Historically, however, both Hitler and the German High Command still could not believe their good fortune by beating their #1 enemy, the hated French. Essentially, they believed the war was all but complete. The UK merely had to be bombed to the peace table. Besides, there was some secret mutual admiration between the two so-called Teutonic cousins. Many German elites believed that the English, while deluded by democracy and Yankee commercialism, were still noble enough to have a seat in the new Aryan hegemony.

Of course, there was Napoleon and his Gallic hegemony too. The Brits survived his nonsense as well.

[JerseyJohn]

GroupNorth

Good points, Hitler states in Mein Kampf that he hated the idea of Germans and English killing each other. He wasted a lot of time on his pet idea that Britain would buy into his vision of Germany ruling Eurasia and Britain controling the Atlantic as a German partner.

Regarding the invasion, by the time things were organized it would have been Autumn and even with some coastal ports captured by paratroops/gliders and air transported infantry, the rest would have been brought across by ship in rough weather. Not a pleasant prospect for Hitler and his inner circle; additionally, if it was a very rainy season the new found air supremacy would have been minimised.

I think it was Hitler who got cold feet. Many of his generals were brave enough or screwy enough to attempt almost anything. Runstedt or Bock would have been glad to command such an operation because if it fell through they'd have been free to blame both the navy and the airforce. I mean, just look at those crusty old Prussian Fieldmarshals (von Bock left, von Runstedt right). Hitler's leadership inspired both men to have medical problems! Bock retired after Moscow 1941. Runstedt came out of retirement, retired again and came out of it afterwards. :eek:

Four Fieldmarshals; two already there, two rising in 1940

The Matildas weren't bad for 1940, but German anti-tank tactics would have neutralized them long enough for at least one panzer division to be ferried across. I don't think Rommel leading his ghost division would have had much trouble with them. It isn't meant to sound lofty, only truthful. Below left, Rommel the Desert Fox in Africa.; right Erich von Manstein, the Reich's most brilliant Fieldmarshal dismissed after Kursk for being too outspoken in his criticsm of Hiter, actually calling him an idiot on the way out the door!

[ January 03, 2003, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Rommel made a name for himself in France. He didn't lead till latter. Though I assumed any such OP against Britian after the initial failure would be 1941. Hitler did see the British as some sort of kin. He didn't want War with them, Churchill denied him. Ironically Churchill didn't like Jews much himself!!!

Germany produced many great leaders! Also some brilliant minds; sad that Hitler scared most of them away. I think that Rommel in the assasination attempt during '44 has at least put his name down as not going with the flock entirely. Cost him his life!

I would have loved to have seen a Patton/Rommel combo in Normandy<Patton to my mind, never proved himself against that adversary>, I think the younger leader had more cohonas and the type of leadership that would be needed to pull out the impossible. Though the desert is a very different terrain so who knows.

Despite German leadership and the great soldiers she armied the Allies caught up in experience, intelligence and learned from their mistakes. Whilst Hitler continually blundered after a failed Sea Lion and losing an atrocious amount of AC. He went after an obsession. I would have taken Suez I wouldn't have sent a detachment to help it along some. I wouldn't have bothered with the Balkans unless I feared their entrance into the War. Russia is a "most do," at some point. I wouldn't have pressured the USA by declaring war, I would have declined any involvement with the Japanese at that point Who obviously didn't benefit Hitler personally...in fact the extra men and materials was a deathnail... Also directing my men towards Caucas Oil and wealth is a waste! I want the capitol, the capitol is always the key.. Like all great Conquorors the Germans join the Ranks of History... And we play, and replay their many possiblities. The highest most accurate,<and fun> version is what we love!

We want to relive history and see what could have been done! Though real life has so many variables!

Again I reiterate Italy was Germany's thumb if Britian was Russia's right arm.