LR was very disappointing imo. I could care less about spies, and it's way too much to micro. I do like cryptology, but who tf cares about armored cars and scout planes?
- 5
oh no, oh nononono
- Thread starter Chreisler
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The Germans could not have attacked any earlier than what they did. By June 22, the Germans were still arranging units and logistics across the border. Summer came late that year also.
- 2
- 2
- 1
Yeah, it's not like Germany had to commit its full offensive capacities (sans Afrika corps) to the east...
It's also not very plausible, like you say, that the British collapse in north Africa would have meant the end of the empire.
To conquer India proper, which is twice as far from Berlin as was Stalingrad, you need to commit forces and get them there.
nNorth afrika pales in significance to the battle of the Atlantic, let alone the eastern front.
- 5
See if a lot of books I've read say this, something true, there must be no? Watching troops move to another area means you have to create logistics for those areas as well (so troops moved to another). It is not difficult to understand ...
The axis are a complete disaster in terms of logistics and productions.
Too many varieties without any perspective of the productions lanes that are been bombed everytime... expensive maintenance and a stupid idea to go to war against every single great power of the globe at the same time.
Not gonna lie, in tactics and combat are better than their foes and the quality of their discipline causes a great damage to the allies and commies. But the combat in a great scale requires a economic plan and a very fluent logistic work. Without that, the tanks are out of fuel, the troops hasn't receive enough reinforcements to carry the fight and 200 tigers csnnot deal against a whole army by themselves.
The las 2 great wars shows how much important is the numbers of production, economy and logistics than the battle itself.
Too many varieties without any perspective of the productions lanes that are been bombed everytime... expensive maintenance and a stupid idea to go to war against every single great power of the globe at the same time.
Not gonna lie, in tactics and combat are better than their foes and the quality of their discipline causes a great damage to the allies and commies. But the combat in a great scale requires a economic plan and a very fluent logistic work. Without that, the tanks are out of fuel, the troops hasn't receive enough reinforcements to carry the fight and 200 tigers csnnot deal against a whole army by themselves.
The las 2 great wars shows how much important is the numbers of production, economy and logistics than the battle itself.
- 2
- 1
The "fate" of the British Empire in those conditions is a secondary question. I just pointed out that a complete lack of access to resources and logistics in the Mediterranean would have dire consequences for the entire course of the war. Yes, one could recall the length of the territories (do not forget about Japan), the United States (this did not help the Philippines), the very goals of the Reich ... But the forecast, in general, is disastrous.
The USSR, with all its victories and sacrifices, was a secondary character. The fall of Moscow would not have stopped the war, in any way.
- 6
- 1
I would have to disagree that the entire free world would have collapsed with the fall of the Suez Canal and even the entire Middle East to Germany. The oil would have been a boon to the Germans, but America could make up the loss easily. Convoys going around Africa would have been a problem, but not existential. For the spoils of Africa itself? Let's not forget that looking at paper maps gives false impressions about global events. Once you look at a globe, you will quickly realize that Germany had no chance, this side of heaven, to absorb vast parts of the African continent, let alone defend it.
The Italians you say? What about them? They could not hold water in a cup. They surely would not have suddenly found the material, manpower, and most importantly leadership, to hold such vast lands. What is more, they were logistically so unprepared for war that they could not move the short distance from the Libyan border to the Suez, when only 30,000 British troops stood before their quarter of a million. No, the Italians were not going to be much help. The Germans would have to hold the vast lands.
Winning in Africa and the Middle East, would have meant a much smaller concentration of force for Operation Barbarossa. It would have surely failed, just like its much stronger historical cousin did. Just sooner.
- 3
Excuse me? Did you just call the USSR a "secondary character" in WWII? Are you kidding me? Obviously you're delusional or trolling. They're the next most important country after Germany.
- 9
It is likely that the fate of the Allies was not centered around the Suez Canal. But again, the very course of the war would be catastrophic. Whether or not the United States would have made up for the losses is a highly controversial issue, especially considering that they entered the war in 41. The role of Italians could have been better, or it could have been purely administrative. Victory in Africa could mean a delayed beginning of Barbarossa, or generally postponing for better times, or a complete victory. (There were plans for the transfer of troops from Central Asia to India)
- 2
Well, if you think so, please. But let me remind you that World War II began without them at all.
- 15
By this metric you think Mengukuo was more important than the German Reich? I see....
- 3
- 2
- 1
But as you said, Mengukuo was in the war first, so naturally Germany is a secondary character. Or, hear me out, your logic is flawed, the world isnt upside down, and the Soviets were a major character.
- 3
- 2
Oh you mean the pact Germany and Soviet did to carve up Poland which came as a surprise to the allies and made it so if they came to the rescue they'd go to war with Soviet also?
I'm no WW2 expert but from what I know Soviet not only played a super important role to bring the war to its end but they were also this HUGE threat on the same level as Germany and there's a big reason we had the cold war after it. Soviet was looking to expand in the same way as Germany. The finnish war was a failure by them to emulate a blitzkrieg invasion but everyone knew they were eager to go and Germany considered hostilities a given and wanted to strike while Soviet was still unorganized as their military power was theoretically one of the strongest while the allies were super fucking scared of doing anything to Soviet and have them team up with Germany.
- 3
- 1
The union was an IMPORTANT character, but not DECISIVE. The Manchukuo were neither IMPORTANT nor DECISIONAL. I hope this is clearer.
- 4
- 4
They SINGLE HANDEDLY took down the Wehrmacht on the eastern front. How was the Red Army not decisive enough for you? How much harder did Stalin have to bitch slap Hitler for you to consider the Soviets decisive?
- 4
"SINGLE HANDEDLY"? Of course, Stalin personally could open as many fronts as he wanted. And he hid his Kryptonian origin ...
- 2
haha keyboard go taptaptaptap
The dev diary will be up momentarily, and will have more info. Please remain calm in this difficult and challenging environment.
- 5
- 4
- 4