The German tanks were out-matched in France, never mind Russia!
It was German tactics and innovation that won most of their battles.
Honestly, I think the Germans should have won the war- I felt that they had the better tactical minds on their side, but had a damn bad ally in Italy and lacked the strategic foresight and industrial capacity to win…well, there is the issue of the militarily inept Fuhrer…but that’s another issue altogether. I think they adapted the best to the new quick strike tactics pioneered in 1918- I mean, the French saw that and developed the Maginot Line, and the Germans developed what the media called blitzkrieg…
Blitzkrieg is a very suitable name for the German tactics. It’s German for “lightning war” and the Germans did do very well in the beginning of the war. I’m happy that they made so many mistakes and only wish that they would have made more earlier and they the western powers would have stopped Hitler earlier. They had the ability to win, but thank God they didn’t becuase Hitler was a madman. You’re right about Italy. I’m sure Spain would have been mroe successful than Italy would have been in the war. Franco was a very good military general.
the allies would have been able to prevent the war entierly if they didn’t let germany build up an army. i’m not sure but i think in the versille treaty he wasn’t allowed to have an army. the allies should have used there troops in stead of lettin germany build up an army on the eastern front to "stop the comunist threat’'. hitler may have won if the damn japs didn’t attack pearl harbor. he may have gone on and defeated both russia and great britian. and at that time they could have worked together to take on the us.
I don’t know how politically correct “damn Japs” is…anyway- the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor was a very good move, tactically- it essentially gave the Japanese the Pacific…problem was that the pre-emptive attack didn’t knock out the carriers, which came back to haunt the Japanese later in the war. I wonder why other countries, in wartime, fail to see how quickly the United States can mobilize for war from peacetime industry. It happened in both World Wars…
I’m still amazed at how quickly Germany re-militarized after the economic depression brought on by the Treaty of Versaille…amazing what a little bigotism, leadership, and motivation do to people…
On a sidenote, has anyone else read the Harry Turtledove alternate history series of books? They’re a great read. Especially with the U.S. joining Germany in WWI…
On the Italians, Leadership was not the main trouble, Italian troops could and on occiaisionly did fight very tough and admirably (one point Captain Correlles Mandolin got right). However in the end a poor cause, poor morale and an inept upper leadership where the bane of the Italian soldiers. When they fought on the allied side on home soil they performed well and as partisians, even if they were largely communist.
if the damn japs didn’t get there hard on so early and wait for the american carriers to return the pacific would have been caos for america. wake island may have fallen faster due to drop in moral from knowing there would be no carrier support. in the second great war the importance of air craft carriers exceded that of battle ships.
Actually, the Imperial Japanese Navy’s mistake was not bombing the oil depots & refineries on Oahu. If they had done so, and then kept the pressure on, the US war in the Pacific would have been set back to San Diego(that’s 2000 miles and about a 6 month to 1 year time span according to some strategists).
The carriers(CAs [or CVs to navy pukes]) would have been a nice lil bonus had they been in port.
Oh, let’s not fail to mention the US LUCK at Midway! 4 JPN CAs swimmin wif da fishies fer 1 US CA(even the IJN thought it was 2 US CAs).
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atta boy, Nimitz! - Xi
@Xi:
Actually, the Imperial Japanese Navy’s mistake was not bombing the oil depots & refineries on Oahu. If they had done so, and then kept the pressure on, the US war in the Pacific would have been set back to San Diego(that’s 2000 miles and about a 6 month to 1 year time span according to some strategists).
The carriers(CAs [or CVs to navy pukes]) would have been a nice lil bonus had they been in port.
Oh, let’s not fail to mention the US LUCK at Midway! 4 JPN CAs swimmin wif da fishies fer 1 US CA(even the IJN thought it was 2 US CAs).
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atta boy, Nimitz! - Xi
Japan’s mistake was that the army was incompetent and that the navy knew this and because of their long time fights, the army appointed fools to the navy commandships. Admiral Yamamoto did not want the Admiral who commanded the attack, Admiral Nagumo, to command it. He knew fro mthe beginning that Nagumo would screw up and he did at Pearl Harbor, at Midway and at Guadalacanal. Had Yamamoto been able to appoint his own navy officers, which he couldn’t do even though he was command-in-chief of the navy, then Japan might have actually been able to win the PAcific War quickly. Yamamoto had predicted that he could keep the Americans running for a year before they’d turn around and defeat Japan, and he was right. He knew that the army would make too many mistakes.
I always lose the Free for Alls because I won the first few we played, now I’m always the first one attacked. They fear me!
…regarding historical accuracy of A&AE, it seems like a great balance, considering the simplicity of the game (dozens of unit markers, not thousands; no seasonal or terrain effects, etc.).
At the start on the Eastern Front, Hitler & Stalin had rough numerical equivalence in air forces and amour. Yet the Germans lambasted the Soviet steel in the early going, gaining near total command of the air, for instance. The game reflects this by designating a very small effective size for the Soviet airforce.
On the ground, the T-34s were largely tied to Infantry movement, while the Panzers had the sweeping luxury of operating as armored divisions. Again, the Game reflects this by starting the Germans with twice as much armour as the Soviets.
In terms of masterful deployment of manpower and materiel, the German war machine in 1941 was tuned up, oiled up and of superior experience. Still, the sheer mass, resistance and yes, initiative of Russian footsoldiers, wedded to the vast scale of the land was enough to counterbalance the assault each summer: 41, 42, 43.
And that’s the way this game plays out. The Germans attempt to chew up Soviet armies, because the land itself is too hard to fill up with decisively massed forces. and to hold. The Soviets absorb shocks, counterpunch and stall. The game can go either way, depending on skill, experience and luck of the players, and the coordination of the Allies.
The balance is there. Historically accurate on the micro scale? Not. But on a reasonable scale for ease of use and plenty of variations: Sure seems so.
And as for those Italians, well, they had done that Empire thing already. Mussolini made em nostalgic for Roman glory and got em fired up – for a spell. Then they remembered there were more interesting things to do back home (wine, women, song, sports, art, motorcycles, etc.) than in Abyssinia or Greece, where it was too hot and dusty and the locals were less than accommodating. Besides, they got tired of being associated with that bigmouthed Austrian complainer who forgot to show them respect and was a lousy painter.
The problems with the Italians mainly were the fault of the Germans. Germans treated Italians as grunts, so Italians were supplied very poorly.
Interesting that the Germans invaded much less rugged topography – Poland, the Low Countries, northern France, Russia. In other words, some swampy conditions, forested hills, etc. but mainly FLATLANDS. The Italians had the job of conquering Greece. Pretty tough stuff, and against fanatical, organized partisans.
Anyway, I didn’t realize that the Germans had much sayso in supplying the Italians. I do know a good joke or two about the mighty Italian armed forces (among my ancestors, by the way):
Q: Why did they build the new Italian Navy with glass-bottomed boats?
A: So they could see the old Italian Navy!
The Italians couldn’t win anyfront where they went. In greece, it was the german division which in the end broke the british defenses. Mainly the forces attacking greece were Italians and they succeeded in against yugoslavia, but yugoslavia was nothing.
In africa the italians were getting their ass whipped by the british until Rommel came to turn the tide for sometime.
Mainly italians were fitted for war poorly. Morale, arsenal, troops and leadership was very weak. They should only had produced german arsenal, maybe germans should have conquered them and turned their indrustrial to produce only german made weapons… :evil:
Germany could have won WWII, it was close in many things. But I am thankful that they didn’t. But I still stick more to german side, because they only helped us (finnish). Sending weapons and manpower. The allies (British, USA) in the early war didn’t do squat to help us when the soviets -39 attacked. Only because old weapons and some which we had bought from germany helped us to withstand that. Russians were weak, 10 to 1 they outnumbered finnish when they attacked, with armor and artillery.
As for A&A. I am WWII fan and this game is simple to set up and play, but still is a challenge. Like many have said chess is the most accurate word for it.
I just got both A&AE and A&AP for my anniversary and I just want to know one thing…why is the Stuka the German fighter plane in A&AE? Wouldn’t it have been better for them to use the ME-109 or FW-190? I doubt that the Stuka would have made a very good air superiority fighter. Also what’s up with using the Wasp as the model for U.S. carriers? There was only one Wasp class carrier anyway, why not use the Essex class ships? Oh and its not a British Royal Oak class battleship…it’s the Royal Sovereign class and that class sucked (Churchill called them floating coffins), the Queen Elizabeth’s and even the KGV’s were far superior. One other thing…in A&AP the Japs should have the Shokaku class carrier, not the Fabuki class…I never even heard of the Fabuki class before! Does anybody know about this class? If so where can I get info on them? Just minor details but it still looks like these two games will be great to play…can’t wait to give them a try
I saw a BBC documentary the otehr day about the Battle in the Atlantik. It seems like if the Brits had not captured an Enigma machine, that the UK actually might have been defeated.
Even before the germans tried to sink more transports than the UK could build, they already had reduced the amount of imported food from 22 million tons to 12 million tons, not to mention other needed goods.
I never thought it was that close.
So, for historical correctness, in A&A:E more convoys would be nice :)
sorry, not much to contribute, i just really like this thread.
also in the same vein as ZZZ - although the units may not have historically appropriate attack/defence ratios, at the same time, the game may have already corrected for that in terms of the “numbers” of units, the value of territories, and the game set-up - in order to make the game more playable. Does this work for anyone?
these free for all sound interesting and I was wondering where I can find these rules. thanx for any help :)
About the Stukas, since Axis & Allies is all about terristrial combat (especially Europe) I think the designers wanted to represent mainly ground attack aircraft and to my knowlege Bf-109s and Me-190s were almost exclusively intercept and air attack craft. Of course it would follow that the Russians should get Il-2s and the British should get Hurricanes or Typhoons but unfortunately these craft are virtually unkown to most people. The stuka, on the other hand, is one of the most widely recognized ground attack aircraft ever. I don’t have anything to say about the naval units, not really up on my naval history at all.
