This is for Global 1940 but I’m sure at least half of the details here apply to Europe 1940 (lots of options):
The Hitler Options
-
While ideological obsession was one driving factor, I don’t think any assessment of Hitler’s or Germany’s aims can underestimate the deeply etched impact of WW1 on the entire generation and their dreaded strategic nemesis: the two-front war.
Neutralizing Russia should have uber-NOs for Germany.
-
Please do away with the NO’s.
-
Kurt; 2 points:
One of the principle reasons for attacking in the Mediterranean/Middle East is to establish a southern front against Russia (i.e. through the Caucasus), enabling Germany to grab the vital oil centres early in the attack. Having to divert large forces to attack the area from the north in summer 1942 (rather than press towards Moscow) fatally wounded the last chances of winning in Russia.
Also, its been calculated that Germany gained far more in raw materials from Russia under the Hitler-Stalin pact than it ever did by occupying the most productive areas of the USSR. Of course Hitler believed he would have the lot before very long…
Actually Germany should get an IPC boost from Russia as long as they are not at war, as Stalin was keen to see Germany and the UK grind each other down and was very happy to supply the Germans with what they needed. It was when they tried to take what they needed that their war economy began to break down.
-
Germany needed to send their women to work. I heard that somewhere.
-
They didnt treat it like a TOTAL war the women didnt work and the factories closed at night…whereas everyone else worked nonstop and employed the other_gender_
-
Kurt; 2 points:
One of the principle reasons for attacking in the Mediterranean/Middle East is to establish a southern front against Russia (i.e. through the Caucasus), enabling Germany to grab the vital oil centres early in the attack. Having to divert large forces to attack the area from the north in summer 1942 (rather than press towards Moscow) fatally wounded the last chances of winning in Russia.
Also, its been calculated that Germany gained far more in raw materials from Russia under the Hitler-Stalin pact than it ever did by occupying the most productive areas of the USSR. Of course Hitler believed he would have the lot before very long…
Actually Germany should get an IPC boost from Russia as long as they are not at war, as Stalin was keen to see Germany and the UK grind each other down and was very happy to supply the Germans with what they needed. It was when they tried to take what they needed that their war economy began to break down.
These are excellent points. I agree with everything you said, with one disclaimer: a successful North African/Middle Eastern campaign would have required a favorable naval situation for the Axis in the Mediterranean. I don’t know how close the Axis was to being able to achieve that. Beyond that, however, what you’ve described sounds like it would have been a much better policy, especially in hindsight.
While the idea of a North African/Middle Eastern strategy was discussed, Hitler opted against it for several reasons:
- He underestimated the present strength of the Soviet Union. Germany’s military planners thought the Soviets had 200 divisions. They had 600.
- Hitler’s impulse was to destroy the Soviet Union as quickly as possible, thereby depriving it of the time to complete its industrialization. What neither he nor other German leaders realized was that the Soviets were much further along in the process of industrialization and militarization than had been realized. It was not the Soviet Union which needed time to catch up with Germany–it was Germany that needed time to catch up with the Soviet Union!
- The Soviets had purged their army a few years earlier. That purge created a temporary leadership void–a void exacerbated by a subsequent switch from one kind of military doctrine to another. These factors seemed to present a very tempting (if relatively short) window of opportunity during which the Soviets could be quickly and easily defeated.
- Even though the U.S. was still neutral in the spring of '41, its industrial might was being increasingly turned against Germany. In 1940, American aircraft shipments to Britain were in the same ballpark as German aircraft production. And the U.S. had plans to increase its aircraft production capacity many-fold, with those aircraft to be sent to Britain to bomb German cities. Hitler’s fear of America’s industrial strength made him impatient to do something quickly, before American industrial strength could have a decisive impact. His hope was to gobble up the Soviet Union as quickly as possible, because later on he would need all Germany’s strength to defend against Anglo-American aircraft production.
But I agree that whether or not Hitler could afford to wait that extra year to invade the Soviet Union, he needed to wait. To grab the oil and raw materials you mentioned, to gain the extra places from which to invade, to give Germany’s military production a chance to start catching up to the Soviets’, and to weaken the British war effort. Still, my conclusion is based mostly on information which was not available to the German leadership at the time. If I had had only the information the German military planners had had, the decision to wait a year before invading would seem a lot less obvious.
-
The leaders could give a boast of defense when their territory is under attack :-)
LOL, a Hitler leader piece should give a +5 to all die rolls to German troops when defending a territory. He was an awful tactician. Remember Berlin?
-
@Brain:
I think the game should have leaders like in the War game. Wouldn’t it be cool to get a Hitler piece in the game.
LOL I bet you played that Star Wars empire video game where the Emperor and Darth Vader could be shipped around to various planets to influence Rebel/Empire standings… So is the Hitler piece going to be a last ditch piece on which if he dies, the Empire falls?
-
Mabey their could be a Hitler peice that could go to Neturals a make their standing better towards Germany (eg True Netural to Pro-Axis).
And mabey he could cause agacent territories to have 3 inf to defend on 3 or something.
If he dies, they loose that advantage, and Russia, UK and US claim a 1 time NO of 10 IPCs or something.
-
If AH falls the REICH would PROSPER ;)
-
The leaders could give a boast of defense when their territory is under attack :-)
LOL, a Hitler leader piece should give a +5 to all die rolls to German troops when defending a territory. He was an awful tactician. Remember Berlin?
And no retreats on the Attack!!! :evil:
-
Yeah we need a Hitler and Rommel piece.
-
We could have democratic peices (Hitler, Roservelt, Churchill) that affect neturals and give factory bosts (increased production, cheeper damage repaires) and militery peices (MacCarther, Nimitz, Rommel) that help with war things (defense). Hitler could be both. He was supreme commander of Russia.
-
@democratic:
We could have democratic peices (Hitler, Roservelt, Churchill) that affect neturals and give factory bosts (increased production, cheeper damage repaires) and militery peices (MacCarther, Nimitz, Rommel) that help with war things (defense). Hitler could be both. He was supreme commander of Russia.
ROFLOL :-o :-D 8-)
-
Well he was voted into office…. :|
-
Yes, or even better, he could adversally affect neturals on which he is next to. EG pro-axis to true. And he could also cause tanks to defend on 2 or something because of what a mess he made of everything.
-
@democratic:
We could have democratic peices (Hitler, Roservelt, Churchill) that affect neturals and give factory bosts (increased production, cheeper damage repaires) and militery peices (MacCarther, Nimitz, Rommel) that help with war things (defense). Hitler could be both. He was supreme commander of Russia.
I agree with the concept, but I disagree that Hitler could do both.
-
I know, that was a joke.
But the general idea of democratic leaders and militery leaders I still like.
For the Pacific game, America would have Nimtiz (Mid-Pacifc) and MacCarther (South Pacific). Mabey we could have a Brittish Militery leader (don’t know one) but the ANZCACs might have 1 as well.
The Japenese might have 2 admirals and 1 general. Don’t know which. You probly don’t need democratic peices in this because their are not neturals to affect, and not Prime Minsters anyway.
-
Yeah I like this idea a lot, Maybe someone could come up with a good concise list of which leaders should be represented in the game.
-
Another consideration here is the deployment of Soviet units.
On June 21 1941 these were deployed on mass on the front line, because Soviet doctrine determined that wars should be fought aggressively; they would attack the Germans before being attacked. This is why so much material was lost early on, particularly aircraft, which no sensible A&A player would ever leave on the front line.
This means that either the Red army will be grossly under represented, thus preventing the USSR player deploying defence in depth; or that the Germans will have a much harder time breaking through than they did historically.
Also, if the silly land movement rules remain the same it will take several turns to shift German units into attack formation on the eastern front after the French war, time in which the Soviets can build up considerable strength. My fear is that the Axis will have to use Japan to wear away at Russian strength in order to give Germany/Italy time to redeploy, whereas sensible rail movement would have avoided this problem.
Suggested Topics
