Is Germany gonna be strong enough?

Yup, in the name of “balance” this game will probably have germany (and italy) overpowered at the start, at least from what forces/chances they had historically.  Agreed, the Allies essentially “let” them win most of their major victories in 1939-41, and it was sheer luck or chutzpah that allowed them to take over as much as they did: either by Britain’s “Peace-in-our-time” appeaser Chamberlain, to France’s defensive stance throughout '39 and failure to defend southward in the Ardennes, to Stalin’s “Hitler-is-my-friend-non-aggression-pact” backstab opening in '41.

The Germans did have the Dieppe oilfields of Romania, but the constant day/night bombing raids of the RAF and USAF ensured that that oil supply would be one of the critical issues effecting German production and war material output, especially later in the war.  Once Germany cut its cords with the Soviet Union and stopped receiving shipments of food and oil, they started gambling over their heads.

@SgtBlitz:

It was a combination of strategic indecisiveness and the later invasion date and early winter (i.e. the late drive to Moscow) that doomed the Nazi invasion in 41 (it was the Nazis best chance).  If Barbarossa had gone on in early April or May 1941 as planned the Germans might have gotten a lot farther. Russia would have been taken by surprise regardless since Stalin was a big unsuspecting fan of Hitler and there were no plans for defending Eastern Europe from German attack.  But since in AAE40 war is auto-dec on Round 4 and the territories have little IPC numbers attached to them that you automatically collect without partisan or civilian interference, there is no real reason for dragging the conflict out.

But yeah, LOL, I know what you mean, in real life the Reds and Nazis could have formed the new Commie-Nazi empire if Hitler had just waited and not backstabbed Russia when it was convenient.  Or when the battle for England started going not so well.(Hell, I think the Brits were at war with Germany for upsetting the European balance of power (that was in UK’s favor pre-1941) more than anything.  A unified Europe, whether Napoleanonic or Hitleresque, was the only real threat to the Empire, and Churchill knew it.  Guess Hitler didn’t care, or realized the US with Lend-Lease was just itching for a reason to enter the war.)  Why oh why did Hitler bite the Russian hand that fed him in 1941?  Petulance, I guess?  Or I guess the whole narcissistic megalomaniac dictator thing was taking over.  It was ironic that the Germans started having trouble with supply after their invasion of Russia, when before June 1941 the Russians were giving their war machine enough raw materials to last for ages.

Well, how about not starting WWII at all?  If Hitler had just waited until 1945 when the German military planners said they really could roll over the world the Germans would have done better (imagine a tricked out German fleet in the Baltic, with 3-4 Bismark class battleships and aircraft carriers, with subs running amok everywhere).  Would the US have really developed the A-bomb without WWII?

In 1939, Germany was a relatively small nation that had access to comparatively few natural resources. Britain and France were, combined, spending significantly more on the military than Germany was. The fact that Germany was falling behind, in terms of the military situation, was one reason why Hitler decided to launch the war in '39. Also, Allied diplomacy had become far more warlike after '38; with France promising Poland a French offensive against Germany if Germany declared war against Poland. Combined, the armies of Poland and France were significantly larger than those of Germany; and Polish military planners believed they could win a war against Germany if France launched its promised attack. That belief, in turn, gave the Polish government a significant incentive to avoid diplomatic cooperation with Germany.

After Poland fell, it had initially appeared (based on the balance of forces) that Germany would reach a stalemate with France in the west over the short-term; with the combined Anglo-French industrial capacity being used to crush Germany in a long war. Obviously, that scenario was changed by the rapid fall of France. (An outcome caused not by French incompetence, but by the brilliance of a few German generals, the effectiveness of the Wehrmacht, and a fair amount of good luck for the Germans.)

However, in 1940, Britain produced more military aircraft than did Germany. Moreover, the U.S. shipped very large numbers of military aircraft and aircraft engines to Britain. Plans had been put into place to dramatically expand American aircraft production capacity, with fully half the aircraft produced sent to Britain. Germany lacked the industrial capacity and access to raw materials to compete against this long-term threat, or to prevent its cities from being destroyed by that combination of American and British industrial strength.

It was under those circumstances that Germany decided to invade the Soviet Union. Under its previous arrangement with the Soviets, German manufactured goods were to be traded away for Soviet raw materials. But by conquering the Soviet Union, Germany could have access to a far more significant amount of materials and manpower. This was an opportunity to put the (then) undefeated German Army to work in order to help solve the long-term air war problem it then faced.

Also, Hitler was suspicious of Stalin, and believed the Soviet dictator would launch a war against Germany as soon as the Soviet Army was ready. While Hitler was correct to suspect Stalin and his motives, Stalin’s actual plans were somewhat different than Hitler had believed. Stalin regarded both Germany and the Western democracies as equally enemies of the Soviet Union. Stalin therefore hoped for a long, bloody war between the two sides: a repeat of WWI. After both sides had been bled white, the Soviet Army would move westward into Europe; with neither Germany nor the Western democracies able to resist its advance. Over the short-term, however, this meant that Hitler could have gotten several years of Soviet neutrality, had he wanted it.

In planning the invasion of the Soviet Union, German military planners had believed the Soviet Army would consist of 200 divisions. In the spring of 1941, the German Army had 150 divisions–but they were qualitatively superior to their Soviet counterparts. However, the Soviet Union had vast reserves of manpower; and by the end of 1941 had expanded its army to the staggering size of 600 divisions.

In 1942, the Soviet Union out-produced Germany 3:1 or 4:1 in major land weapons categories, and produced nearly twice as many military aircraft as did Germany. There were several reasons for this, including the fact that Germany was somewhat behind the Soviet Union in terms of industrializing its weapons manufacturing effort. By 1944 German military production slightly exceeded that of the Soviet Union. But by then it was too late to matter.

Had Germany not invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, there is a very significant chance Germany would have been slowly crushed, and its cities destroyed, by the Anglo-American aircraft manufacturing effort.

What biasd information are you guys looking at? Several things saved the Russians from losing Moscow in Barbarossa; one was the late start, two was the Germans were not outfitted for winter warfare and three that German commanders wasted time pillaging the civilians and bragging about taking certain cities almost like it was a game.

Don’t fool yourselves, Russia was very, VERY lucky to not lose. Purges of officers in the 30’s left the largest army in the world disorganized, and even the stupor that Stalin went into for several days when he realized the Germans actually attacked was almost the straw that broke the camel’s back.

And lets put it this way, do you really think with Russia out of the picture that the US would stomach losing millions in ANOTHER European conflict? Remember that the only reason we went to war with Germany was because Hitler declared war on us, the American people were perfectly content with taking care of Japan and letting the chaps on the other side of the pond deal with their own issues.

@maverick_76:

What biasd information are you guys looking at? Several things saved the Russians from losing Moscow in Barbarossa; one was the late start, two was the Germans were not outfitted for winter warfare and three that German commanders wasted time pillaging the civilians and bragging about taking certain cities almost like it was a game.

Don’t fool yourselves, Russia was very, VERY lucky to not lose. Purges of officers in the 30’s left the largest army in the world disorganized, and even the stupor that Stalin went into for several days when he realized the Germans actually attacked was almost the straw that broke the camel’s back.

And lets put it this way, do you really think with Russia out of the picture that the US would stomach losing millions in ANOTHER European conflict? Remember that the only reason we went to war with Germany was because Hitler declared war on us, the American people were perfectly content with taking care of Japan and letting the chaps on the other side of the pond deal with their own issues.

Even if Moscow were captured, they could burn it and retreat, like they did against France in 1812

Yes that had always been Russian doctrine, trade space for time, but if the German army was prepared for the winter and had started earlier they would have severely tested that tactic. And the Germans would have halted anyways because they had occupied 75% of Russia’s industrial might at that point. Taking Moscow would have just been for pride at that point.

Again the major problem was lack of gear suited for subzero temperatures and the late start, those two factors contributed much more than the Siberian divisions ever did. By the time they arrived the Germans had already been broken by the cold.

@SgtBlitz:

Well, if the Manhattan project was finished in peacetime, how long do you think it would have been before the other powers sniffed it out?  How much worse would WWII of been had all the major powers developed nukes?  Once somebody started work on these things, especially in peacetime, spies would notice that a lot of uranium mining had been going on, nuclear physicists were being hired, centrifuges were being ordered, whole cities were being built under extreme secrecy (Oak Ridge, anyone?)  Eventually scientists on all sides would have figured it out, and the bomb race would be on.  You’re also forgetting that the US was largely isolationist at the time, and it took the surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor to wake them out of their torpor.  There may not have been as much money to continue funding the a-bomb had the war not gone on as it did, and the bomb development took several times longer than the scientists thought it would, as well as being the most expensive project the US had ever undertaken.

There also would have been a lot more time to get the kinks worked out on various weapons technology.  Imagine the Germans entering WWII with a mainly jet-based aircraft fleet.  V2 Rocket attacks from the beginning.  The list goes on.

The Maginot line extended to the Channel would still not have prevented Germany from sending tanks through the Ardennes, and still would have been easily bypassable because of fixed emplacements that were vulnerable to airstrikes and air-dropped commandos (Fort Eben-Emael).  The Germans proved that mobile forces were more important in the mechanized WWII era than the WWI-style bunkers and trenches.

Plus Germany with the V2 rockets would be able to launch the nukes without bombers.

@finnman:

@SgtBlitz:

Well, if the Manhattan project was finished in peacetime, how long do you think it would have been before the other powers sniffed it out?  How much worse would WWII of been had all the major powers developed nukes?  Once somebody started work on these things, especially in peacetime, spies would notice that a lot of uranium mining had been going on, nuclear physicists were being hired, centrifuges were being ordered, whole cities were being built under extreme secrecy (Oak Ridge, anyone?)  Eventually scientists on all sides would have figured it out, and the bomb race would be on.  You’re also forgetting that the US was largely isolationist at the time, and it took the surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor to wake them out of their torpor.  There may not have been as much money to continue funding the a-bomb had the war not gone on as it did, and the bomb development took several times longer than the scientists thought it would, as well as being the most expensive project the US had ever undertaken.

There also would have been a lot more time to get the kinks worked out on various weapons technology.  Imagine the Germans entering WWII with a mainly jet-based aircraft fleet.  V2 Rocket attacks from the beginning.  The list goes on.

The Maginot line extended to the Channel would still not have prevented Germany from sending tanks through the Ardennes, and still would have been easily bypassable because of fixed emplacements that were vulnerable to airstrikes and air-dropped commandos (Fort Eben-Emael).  The Germans proved that mobile forces were more important in the mechanized WWII era than the WWI-style bunkers and trenches.

Plus Germany with the V2 rockets would be able to launch the nukes without bombers.

Assuming they got nukes. BTW, how did they get uranium? The Belgians certainly didn’t want to give it from the congo.

The Consensus seems to be that Japan is the favourite in A&AP:1940.  This means that to balance the gloabl game Germany should be the dog in A&A Europe.  The Allies will have to divert resources from Europe to Pacific or Japan will spill into the Middle East, Africa, and/or Russia.

@Gargantua:

If Japan and Russia never break their Non Aggression pact… can the axis still win?

We haven’t even seen the set up!  Still, Japan can help Germany by invading Russia, but they can also help out by crippling the British economy or by forcing USA to spend money in the Pacific.

Furthermore even if the Axis can’t win without breaking the treaty, so what?  They can always just break the treaty!

@SgtBlitz:

I’m hoping Russia is a special case where Axis war decs on Russia WON’T trigger US war footing…

I can’t see USA bleeding for Russia.  Germany was at war with both Russia and England well before USA got off their butt.

@zooooma:

The Consensus seems to be that Japan is the favourite in A&AP:1940.  This means that to balance the gloabl game Germany should be the dog in A&A Europe.  The Allies will have to divert resources from Europe to Pacific or Japan will spill into the Middle East, Africa, and/or Russia.

I disagree.  Even if Germany is favored in A&AE:1940, it could be balanced or favor the Allies in the global game.  There are two reasons for this.

The first is strategic swing power.  As discussed in another thread, the Allies (in particular the US and to a lesser degree UK and USSR) have the ability to “swing” their force from one theater to the other, the better to both concentrate their forces (which is why KGF is so disproportionately powerful a strategy in most other versions of the game) and to respond to specific threats as they develop.

The second is small-scale tactical interactions.  To list two specific examples off the top of my head, USSRs Siberia setup (actually not part of the AAE40 setup, but still…) will do a lot to keep Japan “honest” and leave troops behind to defend Manchuria, which will slow Japan down in taking China and India.  Also, UKs Mideast starting forces and African production will have the option (swing power) to help defend India, as will the potential Indian ocean fleet.

@purplebaron:

@zooooma:

The Consensus seems to be that Japan is the favourite in A&AP:1940.  This means that to balance the gloabl game Germany should be the dog in A&A Europe.  The Allies will have to divert resources from Europe to Pacific or Japan will spill into the Middle East, Africa, and/or Russia.

I disagree.  Even if Germany is favored in A&AE:1940, it could be balanced or favor the Allies in the global game.  There are two reasons for this.

The first is strategic swing power.  As discussed in another thread, the Allies (in particular the US and to a lesser degree UK and USSR) have the ability to “swing” their force from one theater to the other, the better to both concentrate their forces (which is why KGF is so disproportionately powerful a strategy in most other versions of the game) and to respond to specific threats as they develop.

The second is small-scale tactical interactions.  To list two specific examples off the top of my head, USSRs Siberia setup (actually not part of the AAE40 setup, but still…) will do a lot to keep Japan “honest” and leave troops behind to defend Manchuria, which will slow Japan down in taking China and India.  Also, UKs Mideast starting forces and African production will have the option (swing power) to help defend India, as will the potential Indian ocean fleet.

That’s true; those extra 18 infantry (or however many Russia gets in total) will not be in either “half-game” by itself, only in Global.  I also doubt E40 will include the couple ANZAC infantry in the Mid-East (though perhaps they will simply be accounted for with UK infantry in the E40 setup versus the G40 setup), so in essence playing Global as opposed to the half-games has the potential (assuming an unchanged Axis setup) to basically give the Allies a 60+ IPC bid!  Because of this alone, Germany/Italy doesn’t have to be weak in E40 for G40 to be balanced.  And that’s not accounting for the “swing power” previously referred to, however the Global game will also be more taxing on the Allied player with the even greater need for coordination between the multiple powers across the whole board, while the Axis player gets theater-oriented powers that require a lesser amount of coordination.