-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
in my opinion Japan had 2 major problems which cost them, wether or not it made is a difference is a matter of debate.
1) The failure to invest in technology. In 1941 the Zero was by far the best fighter plane in the Pacific, Japan had a similiar advantage in other forms of aviation. In 1945 the Japanese will still using virtually the same planes while the allies had advanced in design. This is repeated elsewhere.
2) The failure to escort convoys. The Japanese suffered due to convoy escort duty being seen as being unworthy of a warior this lead to problems in defending Japanese shipping.
These 2 factors did not do Japan any favours.
In the case of Germany in my opinion the real failure was in the invasion of USSR. The objective fo the campiagn was not clear. The directive talked about the destruction of Soviet forces and the occupation of terrorty, but as a focused objective there was none. In fact Hitler kept pushing for economic objectives and the generals kept pushing of political objects. In my opinion the Germans should of been more focussed in their approach.
As for Italy the real problem was industral strength. Italy just could not properly equip the army they had. A smaller but better equiped army could not of done any worse and would of probably doen better.
1) The failure to invest in technology. In 1941 the Zero was by far the best fighter plane in the Pacific, Japan had a similiar advantage in other forms of aviation. In 1945 the Japanese will still using virtually the same planes while the allies had advanced in design. This is repeated elsewhere.
2) The failure to escort convoys. The Japanese suffered due to convoy escort duty being seen as being unworthy of a warior this lead to problems in defending Japanese shipping.
These 2 factors did not do Japan any favours.
In the case of Germany in my opinion the real failure was in the invasion of USSR. The objective fo the campiagn was not clear. The directive talked about the destruction of Soviet forces and the occupation of terrorty, but as a focused objective there was none. In fact Hitler kept pushing for economic objectives and the generals kept pushing of political objects. In my opinion the Germans should of been more focussed in their approach.
As for Italy the real problem was industral strength. Italy just could not properly equip the army they had. A smaller but better equiped army could not of done any worse and would of probably doen better.
I disagree here. I base this on two things.
Firstly we see the German deployment. In France we have three army groups each with a clear objective, C pinning the French on the Marginot Line, B invading Belgium and the Netherlands to draw the allies in and A doing the encircling sweep. all three working in tandem. In Russia the three army groups were North which was going to the Dvina and then no one was sure after that. Centre wich was to encircle the forces at Minsk and then no one knows what, and South which was to drive south for a while. There was no coherent plan of how to achieve the objectives.
The Tensions in the high command. The army consistently drove for poltical objectives. We see Leebs creative obedence in front of Lenningrad abd Guderians obsession with Mosocw, while Hitler very consently went after economic objectives. This does not smack of a coherent plan either.
The Italian Industry had several serious bottlenecks, lacking both Coal and oil to sustain thier industry. This was a serious problem and since they imported most fo thier coal from Britain when they jioned the war they were dependant on German supplies. This did seriously hold back Italy. Just for your interest the Italians were building a tank comperable to the T-34 in 1943 only a few were produced prior to the surrender.
I totally agree.