I recently watched a video by Military History not Visualized about Italy's Forgotten WW2 Victories. They argued that the Italians acted as a huge drain on the Royal Navy. I don't know if this is really enough to call them a good ally, but fighting in the Mediterranean did cost the Royal Navy a lot.Well Italy didn't do anything to be even considered in the argument...did they?
Not really. I only said it was not the weapons, so what is left?
And what if other countries receive USA fuel as Lend lease?
Its all about what nations you play... two days ago I lost a game, but this game I was playing as Benelux alone against full Germany (which had won in the east). The basegame can present you challanges that I think are nearly impossible to pull of.
The Georgian guy made his generals compete to try and capture Berlin first, resulting in the Soviet general riled up by him focusing on the end result and no regard for the soldier's live, when a more tactical approach would've yielded the same result but with less casualties. The forced brute force only end up in more unnecessary death.
You have 1000 hours, you should know already AI is bad in this game, either buff up the enemy nations and difficulty, or play with mod. I don't expect paradox to ever make any significant improvement to the AI. Their focus is to pump out new content, they're not interested in improving the AI.
Severely overestimating the British here. Sealion would have been very unlikely to have been pulled off, but if it wasn't for the United States, Britain would have had to fold, Churchillian rhetoric notwithstanding. I am counting Lend-Lease and similar ventures to count as US involvement in the war, as it had just as big (or even more so) of an impact as their actual military actions.
The amount of times I've heard this rhetoric is absurd at this point. Yes lend lease helped the soviet union except the only major branch where it was vital was the transportation side of things as the US shipped tons of trains and transport vehicles that would prove vital for offensive operations. Other than that, lend-lease accounted for less than 10% of the other war material the soviets used.
Read the rest of what I wrote. The tanks and planes they shipped was not what I was talking about, as those had indeed little impact.
I think you're forgetting that the British had their own lend lease programme to the soviets who (as far as food and rubber material are concerned) provided more to the Soviets in that regard in the earlier years and recently opened a new route in the south (by invading Iran) for easier access to resources that weren't under threat of u-boat attacks.
I draw a line across the soviet union and press go. 2% org will do nothing when you don't know how to play. Germany is buffed far beyond their historical abilities. The battle of France was a fluke. The French had planned a counter attack to counter encircle the extremely thin Germans but they fired their field Marshal and replaced him. The replacement halted the order and by the time he started the counter attack it was far too late. France is nerfed in game because otherwise I would not fall to the Germans and the game would be dull.
Well Italy didn't do anything to be even considered in the argument...did they?
As best I recall (and it's been a while, so it might be a bit wobbly), the aggregate industrial and resource potential of the British Empire was greater than that of Germany and the occupied territories (noting that it's harder to gain the full potential of occupied territories). The British Empire alone (outside of developing a nuke, which it was closer to than Germany) was unlikely to defeat Germany, but Germany was similarly unlikely to defeat the British Empire alone. The Empire was also fairly confident of at least strong industrial support from the US (had they not been, I expect that at some point a political solution would have been proposed) - which tips the strategic balance even further against Germany.
It was only revolutionary in practice, not in theory. "Blitzkrieg" was just old Prussian maneuver warfare doctrine executed with 1940s technology, there was nothing new about it, it was simply that the special circumstances of WW1 (ie machineguns and TNT existed but not, at least until the end, armored vehicles or aircraft) prevented it from being executed properly in constrained terrain, and so when it returned in 1940 thanks to tanks and all-metal monoplanes it was somewhat of a shock to those who failed to realize that such technology made WW1 a fluke, not the new norm.
Indeed, though one could argue in this vein that there IS no truly revolutionary theory of warfare. Most doctrines are adapted from other doctrines or are a adaption of older ideas to newer technologies and circumstances.
