Kanitatlan said:
Time for a new strategy discussion. The invasion plans for Poland have provoked no discussion so I guess they are a bit of a no brainer. Let us assume that the Poland campaign has completed its first phase – Warsaw has been captured and all forces in western Poland have been eliminated. In these circumstances the first issue is whether to pursue the campaign into the “mud” zone. There will be significant Polish forces remaining in eastern Poland and unless I eliminate at least some of them I will be committed to retaining significant forces in the east.
Q1: do I pursue into the mud and try to destroy more Polish forces before moving on?
No. The Curzon Line is defensible, and in case of a Russian DoW, control of Polish territory allows them a broader front to pour troops through. Encirclements are difficult to come by beyond this point without capturing some of that eastern band.
Q2: whatever I do for Q1, what mix of forces should I leave behind?
Simple infantry, at a 2:3 force ratio to the surviving Polish forces.
The next issue is the follow on strategy after Poland. The obvious next step is to transfer all available forces to the west and carry out the invasion of the Low Countries and France. There is however an alternative of turning south and taking out Hungary and Yugoslavia simply because they are handy for immediate further operations. I am leaning towards a direct to France approach especially because of issue further down this post (see below).
Q3: what operations to immediately follow Poland.
A side issue is when to invade Denmark. They have a key role in providing a locked door for the Baltic. Ideally it would be nice to entice some allied fleets into the Baltic before locking the door but it does also have a significant security role as it prevents allied landings in the Baltic. I think can assume that Denmark will take relatively limited forces to invade and therefore it could be done any time although it might be best to make sure it does not clash with the invasion of France.
Q4: when to take out Denmark?
Either by event or immediately following a landing in the Baltic. 2 divisions are capable of taking and holding Kolding, and a third walking to (an annexed) Copenhagen is sufficient to hold the strait.
This 3-div force is an appropriate standby invasion force. The third div should be stationed along with the other two due south of Kolding, giving some contingency against divine wind on the part of the defenders.
If there is an extraordinarily strong defence at Kolding, airpower is an equalizer.
In the meantime, any Baltic invasion triggering the attack on Denmark is doomed, and any invasion of occupied (read annexed) Denmark by the Allies can not make enough headway fast enough to become a serious threat before the fall of France. A relief column may be dispatched in good time.
After France I am inclined to take a bit of time before invading the UK since their defences will remain quite strong. This will mean that I must pursue a strategy of reduction via air and naval power before actually landing.
What does this mean, exactly? What is the air and naval superiority policy going to look like while land forces are committed elsewhere?
During this period forces can be used elsewhere. My inclination is to send forces to Spain and to the Balkans at the same time. Invading Spain will be a bit of a challenge due to the narrow supply path through occupied France but I think we can live with that. In the east I would go for Hungary, then Yugoslavia, then Bulgaria and then Greece if adequate air forces can be deployed to take Crete by air attack (heavily supported paratroops). This sequence would have to be very quick to be completed before it is time to invade the UK although taking down Britain could reasonably be several months after Poland – say a latest target of September.
In the east, I would suggest a flanking manuever with Yugoslavia. If there are limited forces available and speed is important, an approach from Slovakia through Debrecen to the Banat is a quick way to Bulgaria. Given that western Poland will already have been secured and the Serbs will have a broad flank open, there is little risk of overextension or a worrisome enemy force concentration.
Only a handful of divisions should be needed outside of the eastern spearhead force to hold ground as forces are gathered for the offensives in Slovenia and elsewhere in Yugoslavia. Some sort of stack just needs to be able to arrive at any particular border province and blunt an attack.
I am rather keen on the idea of leaving Romania at least until the MR pact triggers and even then I would be nervous about a Soviet DOW. It would substantially shorten the eastern front, as do the Baltic states, but I think discussing that would be getting a little ahead of ourselves.
Perhaps it is getting ahead of immediate needs, but it bears thinking. The Baltic States plan is sound if I do say so myself, and postponing Romania helps to ensure the MR pact and all of the subsequent benefits (3 cores added, reduced belligerance for Poland and Romanian annexations, and the distraction of the Winter War for the SU). Timing DoWs to avoid a war with Russia before MR isn't premature at all.
One thing that is premature for me to bring up is Bessarabia vs no Bessarabia. I'd just like you to keep in mind that it might be prudent to invade Russia prior to its seizure of Romanian land. A spring invasion, immediately post-mud or even a little bit earlier, could achieve objectives considerably deeper in Russian territory than one postponed for the Russians to make headway. As such, it might bear thinking to have troops in place to invade Romania as early as February or March 1940.
Whether the planning is premature or not, its nice to have some idea where troops may be needed in the middle term. If troops are jumping east, west, south, and north unnecessarily, they may not be as effective as they would be in a more thought-out plan.
Q5: strategy after France whilst waiting for air and navy to be ready for invading the UK
I am tempted to take out Scandinavia at some point as Norway is a good naval base for making landings in northern Russia as well as the whole area being a good source of resources.[/quote]
Perhaps. With the Odense secure, there's nothing to really do anything against offensives in the Baltic, and the Finns are normally the only ones with any forces to resist with (and all of their VPs are conveniently placed on the coast). With the reinforced AI militaries, Sweden's forces still can hold off a determined landing backed by the undoubtably strong KM, and its a walk in the new arctic national state park to grab the last Norwegian VP from there.
I suspect that resources will not be an issue after I capture a few stockpiles except for oil, which I am going to use up at a fantastic rate. There’s nothing like invading the Soviet union knowing that you have 9 months oil supply and absolutely no way of replenishing it. Hopefully London will have dealt with that issue.
There's nothing like strategic planning, then. While seizure of the med may not be a priority, seizure of Britain, Gibraltar and the coasts of France, Spain, Greece and Yugoslavia would seem to be sufficient to allow a strong fleet with transports to pass through to the Bosphorous. With landings at Batum, the Soviet oil supply could be secured, and an overland offensive into Persia and Iraq could be contemplated.
Turkey may very well DoW during the Balkan offensive, particularly if Yugo is left unannexed long enough. Allowing this and the Greek DoW will help keep belligerance just a little bit lower. And securing Constantinople yields a secure naval base for a Black Sea offensive in the future.
Within this strategy I am extremely hesitant to attack any country that I will not be able to annex and hence will definitely contribute further to the allies. Vichy is definitely an issue since they bugger up supply lines through France but will add significant naval forces to the allies if I attack them.
Vichy may not be in the cards in the short term, but their navy can certainly be dealt with without engaging it directly. Since Gibraltar will be taken care of in the short term, a strike sealing the med would seal their navy in to be dealt with at leisure. If there is Black Sea force, a handful of landings within the range of land-based air support could do this during the winter months of the Russian campaigns. (Eg. Landings at Izmir and Graziantep, backed by quick pushes through Samsun into Trebizond and Ankara, could remove Turkey in late 1940, in the early days of TC spiking.)
Unfortunately I hope to invade on rather shorter time scales.
In the Balkans, its a DoW frenzy. Turkey could be taken out simply enough, but if the DoW happens during Yugo, they're going to be sitting out an "contributing further to the Allies". Its so much easier to take them out later with the help of landings, particularly if Istanbul is secure. Its not worth tying up more forces for a longer time there, imo, that could instead help clean up Greece, reduce casualties, and wait for the fleet to arrive.
Q6: What baseline do I want for the invasion of the Soviet Union?
Q6a: What line should I take with the MR pact – no deals, limited pact, full pact.
I'd suggest having Finland, the Baltics, Romania, and Istanbul at the time of the invasion, about April 1940.
Between Finland, the Baltics, and a landing at Archangelsk, the north can be taken quickly and relatively easily. Between Romania and Istanbul, the south may be secured. A massed infantry line can tie down the enemy forces, and spearheads can meet the naval landing forces and airborne drops for large-scale encirclements.
