National Advantages in AA50

Historical Suggested starting NA’s:
Germany: Paratroopers, Blitzkrieg, 5th Column, Mechanized Infantry, Mobile Warfare, Total War.
England: Fast Warships, Trained Pilots, Foreign aid, combined forces.
Japan: Dug in Defenders, Trained Pilots
Soviet Union: Mechanized Infantry, Manpower reserves, Total War.
United States: Paratroopers, Mechanized Infantry, Total War, Foreign Aid, Combined Forces.
Italy: Dug-In Defenders

My additions are in bold, my eliminations are struck out.

Germany does not strike chords of “paratrooper” power in my mind when I think of it.  America does, however, what with the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne coming readily to mind. (I know Germany had paratroopers, but can anyone name one without looking up the unit designation?)

Also, Italy (at least Italy itself) was very heavily fortified, the infantry there should defend at a three.  Perhaps only on Italy itself, but it was one of the major reasons D-Day was planned, since going through the Alps was going to be a nightmare and a half.

I agree with Italy , but Germany had the best airborne in the war until it got wiped out fighting in Crete.

They were top notch commandos.

I will make the change for italy.

http://www.vnutz.com/content/airborne_heritage

Germany joined the airborne bandwagon first. The armistice from the first World War denied Germany the privilege of possessing an air force, however, neither gliders nor paratroopers were expressly forbidden. Germanany decided to convert a portion of their Luftwaffe pilots into paratroopers under the premise they were already accustomed to the air. The first parachute experiments began in June 1935 at a commercial flying school which was converted into an aerodrome. By January 1936, German experiments were complete and the Richtlinien fur die Aufstellung von Fallschirmjager Verbanden (Instructions on the Formation of Parachute Troops) was published.

America’s endeavors into developing airborne units were not serious until the second World War had already broken across Europe. The first American parachute platoon was synthesized at Ft. Benning by order of Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall in 1940. America’s volunteer test platoon developed its doctrine on the fly. Training procedures and apparatus, including the 250-foot towers, were derived from a captured German paratrooper manual. American paratroopers were required to be between eighteen and thirty-two years old, measure between sixty-six and seventy-four inches tall, and weigh no more than 185 pounds. Training consisted of parachute maintenance, gymnastic tumbling, calisthenics, canopy maneuvering, and live jumps. Despite developing an airborne program nearly a decade later than its European counterparts, America effectively gleaned the best aspects from other nation’s training doctrine and incorporated lessons learned from their mistakes in combat situations.

The first effective uses of airborne units in combat were German insertions during the Blitzkrieg. Debate exists over whether Germany actually deployed paratroopers over Poland in 1939 because of Adolf Hitler’s intent to keep the existence of his paratroopers secret. On the 9th of February 1940, German paratroopers made their first documented appearance seizing bridges and airfields in Denmark and Norway. Capturing the Belgian fort Eban Emael on the 10th of May 1940 marked the turning point for airborne units. Here, approximately seventy-seven Germans rode gliders undetected onto the fort’s rooftop and captured 1200 Belgian soldiers within a day’s time. Simultaneously, 400 more Germans silently seized bridges along the Albert Canal opening a passageway through Belgium for Germany’s thrust into France. Germany continued to use its airborne units for smaller, support operations until Crete. For eleven days between the 20th and 31st of May 1941, German gliderborne soldiers and paratroopers fought to take Crete. Although the invasion of Crete was a disaster of execution and coordination, 22,000 German soldiers eventually overpowered the 40,000 British forces. Capturing Crete represented the first time a target was taken solely by airborne units and the last time Germany employed large scale airborne operations in the second World War.

Training airborne soldiers in the United States developed almost to the letter from the German training program. America’s fledgling doctrine was born from captured documents and experience from test runs on training grounds. The best input came from analyzing the German technique in combat. From these early footsteps, General James M. Gavin further refined the American airborne doctrine by combining translated German and Soviet airborne documents into FM31-30, the definitive guide to American operations during the period. From practical implementation, America learned the paratrooper’s weaknesses, strengths, and strategy.

Proper employment of airborne units yields the highest probability of success. Germany’s initial dominance during the Blitzkrieg resulted from a superb mixture of paratroopers as supporting units to the main effort. During the early 1940’s, military doctrine did not include a defense against vertical envelopment and forces were taken by complete surprise. The Belgian fort Eban Emael, for instance, was modeled after the French Maginot line and constructed entirely to repel ground forces. The Wehrmacht used paratroopers primarily as shock troops to inflict heavy damage from within the objective itself and cause chaos and disruption. During this time, the main effort closed on the target to complete the operation. Paratroopers were also employed to seize airfields and bridges so that heavy artillery could be delivered by air or armored units could reinforce the infantry. Airborne units had the advantage of speed, stealth, and mobility working to their benefit.

These new units were not entirely the flawless gems they appeared to be. Accurate intelligence of an objective was next to impossible for airborne units to obtain. Their targets were typically those beyond the range of reconnoitering scouts, forcing many units to jump blind. Airborne forces are highly susceptible to interception before they reach the objective. Either the carrier crafts bearing the entire force could be brought down by anti-aircraft guns or the paratroopers themselves could be machine-gunned as they float down to the drop zone. Self-sufficiency is their greatest weakness. Once inserted, airborne units cannot be resupplied or reinforced unless the objective is secure, forcing them to estimate how much equipment they will require without overburdening themselves. These deficiencies were evident in the Crete operation. The German intelligence did not anticipate the size of the British defense, the Luftwaffe and paratroopers were viciously attacked by anti-aircraft batteries, and the soldiers, expecting equipment drops, were armed with only pistols and grenades.

Okay, I stand corrected on Germany.

I also think America should get them.  America used their airborne heavily from what I understand.  Wasn’t the entire German offensive during the Battle of the Bulge stopped by American airborne units?

@axis_roll:

@testguy:

what is SBR    SuBmaRine?

Strategic
Bombing
Raids

OKAY

yes your correct. here we have it:
Historical Suggested starting NA’s:
Germany: Paratroopers, Blitzkrieg, 5th Column, Mechanized Infantry, Mobile Warfare, Total War.
England: Fast Warships, Trained Pilots, Foreign aid, combined forces.
Japan: Dug in Defenders, Trained Pilots
Soviet Union: Mechanized Infantry, Manpower reserves, Total War.
United States: Mechanized Infantry, Total War, Foreign Aid, Combined Forces, Paratroopers
Italy: Dug in Defenders

During WW2, Italy had a very large submarine fleet, they fought also in the Atlantic, starting from the base on Bordeaux.

Italy had also had the best navy commandoes, they were forg-men. Because my english isn’t good, I invite you to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decima_Flottiglia_MAS

Thank you.

@Cmdr:

Okay, I stand corrected on Germany.

I also think America should get them.  America used their airborne heavily from what I understand.  Wasn’t the entire German offensive during the Battle of the Bulge stopped by American airborne units?

wouldn’t say entirely…

@Nickiow:

@Cmdr:

Okay, I stand corrected on Germany.

I also think America should get them.  America used their airborne heavily from what I understand.  Wasn’t the entire German offensive during the Battle of the Bulge stopped by American airborne units?

Well Airborne will tell you yes and that they did not need Patton to relive them. But since they got there in trucks its a moot point really, and besides in 41 the US lacked them almost entirly, unlike the SU who had the worlds largest trained Airborne force.

Battle of the Bulge at Arrdennes was a German offensive campaign, I think you mean the book and movie “A Bridge Too Far” when the us and uk paratroopers attempted to secure bridges across holland to german border for monty’s advance.

You are correct Nickiow, I should have left your quote out as I responding to CJenn.

I think the Revised NA would be a better idea.  Yes, a lot of tweaking would have to be done, but it’s doable.

I think a lot of the old NAs blend perfectly with the new game.  Here are some examples:

1. Lend Lease lets USSR convert US and UK pieces to USSR pieces.  This means you won’t loose IPCs when your allies try to help you.

2. Japan is now an “island” on the new board, which means Dug-In Defenders now apply.  Didn’t it seem dumb in AAR that Japanese infantry would put up a better fight on Iceland or Greenland than Japan?

Examples of needed tweaks:

1. Siberian Railway would obviously be extended to include the two new territories.

2. The Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europe NA would be weakened if the wording “all gray territories” were kept as is.  At least it should be extended to “all gray and brown territories”.  Basically, German Infantry and Artillery get a bonus fighting in Italy, but Italian Infantry and Artillery don’t.  It seems paradoxical, but that’s the way it happened.  Germany fought to the teeth while Italy surrendered.

I don’t think Italy should get a national “advantage.”  Really, was their anything special or unique about Italy in WWII to warrant a NA?  Personally, I think no NAs add to Italy’s character.  It’s small, poor, and has only 2 NOs.  Yet, it’s probably my favorite.  As the old saying goes, “Small is beautiful.”