Shouldn't US be much, much stronger than in HOI3 to represent historical strength?

[misterbean]

I remember reading somewhere that at one point, when Von Manstein was in command of AG south, that Hitler visited his HQ, only to find out that the Soviets were 50 km away and shelling the HQ .
He hightailed it out of there faster than you could say his first name and gave Von Manstein carte blanche. Manstein just pulled back until the soviets had overextended themselves, slammed the door behind them and annihilated them. The only time Hitler gave one of his generals some freedom.

 

[TDT25]

Well I'm no great historian so I couldn't say how plausible this actually is, but if a major problem was overextension, couldn't that be dealt with? So rather than making a rush for the big cities Germany falls back or digs in after decimating the Russian armies in the first few months of Barbarossa. Maybe Germany razes the land initially taken while falling back which would cause the Russians to face supply problems similar to what the Germans did. Again, not sure how likely this would of been but it at least seems plausible to me.

The problem with that is it becomes a war of attrition, no different than WW1, and even the most fervent Nazi would tell you Germany cannot win a war of attrition. I would refer you to some of Robert Citinos work on the "German way of war." Basically going back to Prussian times, German war planners realized the need to defeat enemies swiftly with one fell swoop due to Germany's position in the center of Europe with mich bigger neighbors and no easy access to raw materials.

 

[Mjarr]

I'll ask again. How does Germany plausibly win. Plenty of people have said Germany would have won, but when questioned they don't provide a reason, they just say "Because" or get nasty!

In optimistic circumstances had they not focused too much on Tour de Russia and instead had taken Moscow and some other relatively important places 1941, it might have been good enough scare to sue for peace. Of course, whether or not they would have actually done that w/o somehow getting rid of Hitler or facing the inevitable problem of occupation eventually is up for grabs. In 1942 had Fall Blau been extraordinary success it might have just been able to scare and exhaust some folk enough to perhaps cause rift inside higher echelons of Soviet Union and thus perhaps have favourable effect to the Germans, but what would follow is once again up for grabs. It's as predictable as telling what happens from 6.6.2066 WITH SCIENCE because SCIENCE, and thus it's just guesswork at best once again.

Maybe they might have won the war but lost the peace and split apart in their own insanity.

Because frankly saying "oh they didn´t win in 1941 so they couldn´t ever win" is too much IMO. The allies said the war would be over by Christmas 1944, and that didn´t happen. Needless to say that even then they won. Why? Because of their strategic position (just saying that making bloated claims was a fault of both sides). Pray tell me how SU strategic position was soo good that they wouldn´t be mauled progressively after 1941.

In same vein perhaps there might been some success from one end to another for Germany had they got their act together and perhaps realise how overextended they were in the long run and instead focus on pulling off Mansteins so to speak. Problem is not as much military capability but administration and politics behind it more and more resembling wild-goose chase of overly offensive mindset in situation which had turned into prolonged war than something they could sort out in simple swift action. But this is of course presuming Winter War happened in the first place (which convinced Barbarossa quite a lot) and otherwise the war would have progressed as it did, especially if we consider the scenario you implied earlier that there would have been no secondary front. Of course, how Stalin would have reacted to sudden fall\surrender of UK could easily give potentially another spin to the events too before Barbarossa 2.0 Now Without Teapots Stabbing in the Back(tm) would begin.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

So you say not having to garrison troops in West Europe and Soviet Union being forced to mobilize much less (because no Lend LEase means more Manpower needed in factories) would make no difference? Really?

And that Germany simply wouldn´t be able to capture all its objectives by 1943? Specially if it fully mobilized like the UK?

Totally disagree, but you are open to your opinion. You won´t change mine and vice-versa.

They can't stop garrisoning everyone. Not possible.

So what if Germany captures its strategic objectives in 1941, or 1943. How does that end the war? Can you please be specific. Explain specifically how Germany wins. Explain how Germany forces the USSR to surrender.

 

[misterbean]

Stalin's reaction to Hitler's victory in France to Molotov is said to have been: "Will nobody stop that madman?"
Then he send him a congratulatory cable

My guess is that he would have been a lot more ready to mobilize early. Both of them were just playing for time, and they each knew that about the other.

 

[Alliegorical]

You wanna know how Germany could have won WW2? Here's how:

It's June 1941, France has just surrendered. Don't bother with the Battle of Britain, and don't attempt Sea Lion. Yeah, it may have been possible, but it's too risky in any case. Don't worry about the USSR yet either; first you need to get the UK to make peace. Priority #1: Straits of Gibraltar. Not to gain passage to the Med, but to deny it to the Brits. To hell with The Rock, let the Brits keep it. Instead demand Petain allow military access through Algeria, waltz into Morocco, and set up a base in Tangiers. Got a problem with it, Franco? What're ya gonna do about it? So you fill it with big ass guns, the works, basically turn it into Anti-Gibraltar. Suddenly it's a million times harder to supply Malta, so you nab that next, easy peasy. After that, put Rommel in North Africa, only give him something to REALLY work with. Like, we're talkin' four panzer divisions or more. In to time, bam, Suez is yours. Brits not done yet? Cruise up into the Levant. It's not like they can stop you at this point. From there, you can establish a border to the Caucasus, which will keep Stalin honest. Brits still not done? Threaten India. GG, UK, they're not gonna keep the war going if it means risking the crown jewel of the Empire. Once UK peaces out, there's approximately zero chance of intervention from the US. Let Petain have the rest of Metropolitan France, but keep the Atlantic Wall strong, just in case. Wait a few years, get all the butter out of the German economy, and start building tanks, I mean REAL tanks, Panther quality shit or better. A dozen divisions of stuff you know can handle the T-34 with ease. When you're ready, push straight into the Caucasus and kick Stalin in the nuts before he knows he's at war. Secure the oil fields, fortify it. Next spring, attack from eastern Europe, and push straight to Moscow. Should work.

If the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, don't declare war on the US, that's dumb. Instead, condemn the attack, break the alliance off, and let the US destroy them.

Any questions?

 

[misterbean]

You wanna know how Germany could have won WW2? Here's how:

It's June 1941, France has just surrendered. Don't bother with the Battle of Britain, and don't attempt Sea Lion. Yeah, it may have been possible, but it's too risky in any case. Don't worry about the USSR yet either; first you need to get the UK to make peace. Priority #1: Straits of Gibraltar. Not to gain passage to the Med, but to deny it to the Brits. To hell with The Rock, let the Brits keep it. Instead demand Petain allow military access through Algeria, waltz into Morocco, and set up a base in Tangiers. Got a problem with it, Franco? What're ya gonna do about it? So you fill it with big ass guns, the works, basically turn it into Anti-Gibraltar. Suddenly it's a million times harder to supply Malta, so you nab that next, easy peasy. After that, put Rommel in North Africa, only give him something to REALLY work with. Like, we're talkin' four panzer divisions or more. In to time, bam, Suez is yours. Brits not done yet? Cruise up into the Levant. It's not like they can stop you at this point. From there, you can establish a border to the Caucasus, which will keep Stalin honest. Brits still not done? Threaten India. GG, UK, they're not gonna keep the war going if it means risking the crown jewel of the Empire. Once UK peaces out, there's approximately zero chance of intervention from the US. Let Petain have the rest of Metropolitan France, but keep the Atlantic Wall strong, just in case. Wait a few years, get all the butter out of the German economy, and start building tanks, I mean REAL tanks, Panther quality shit or better. A dozen divisions of stuff you know can handle the T-34 with ease. When you're ready, push straight into the Caucasus and kick Stalin in the nuts before he knows he's at war. Secure the oil fields, fortify it. Next spring, attack from eastern Europe, and push straight to Moscow. Should work.

If the Japs bomb Pearl Harbor, don't declare war on the US, that's dumb. Instead, condemn the attack, break the alliance off, and let the US destroy them.

Any questions?

Franco might not be able to stop you, but he might sign a NAP with UK and allow THEM military access. Backed up by the Ryal Navy and RAF, inside Spanish borders. Invade Spain? How would Salazar have felt about that? Suddenly you're looking at Portugal and Spain stopping shipments of Tungsten. Maybe Petain would switch sides as well.
Malta? The Italians, backed up by the Luftwaffe, tried for 3 years. They never managed to decisively defeat the Maltese defenses so that they could follow up with an invasion.
Common wisdom at the time had it that by 1943, the Red Army would have been ready.

It might have worked, but there are so many variables in any plan, there is really no telling what might have happened.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I love how this thread has nothing to do with topic anymore

 

[Alliegorical]

Franco might not be able to stop you, but he might sign a NAP with UK and allow THEM military access. Backed up by the Ryal Navy and RAF, inside Spanish borders. Invade Spain? How would Salazar have felt about that? Suddenly you're looking at Portugal and Spain stopping shipments of Tungsten. Maybe Petain would switch sides as well.
Malta? The Italians, backed up by the Luftwaffe, tried for 3 years. They never managed to decisively defeat the Maltese defenses so that they could follow up with an invasion.
Common wisdom at the time had it that by 1943, the Red Army would have been ready.

It might have worked, but there are so many variables in any plan, there is really no telling what might have happened.

Franco would have rolled over. So would Petain. It's not like German boots would be tromping through Spain itself. They were both terrified of Germany; you gotta look at it from their point of view: in 1941, staying good in Hitler's book is a no-brainer. Saying the Italians tried to take Malta for three years isn't saying much; the Italian Army couldn't fight its way out of a pizza shop. Regardless, with control of Tangiers, Malta wouldn't have supplies, and would fall easily. Without Malta, supplies to North Africa would be unmolested, guaranteeing a swift axis victory in that theatre, which is pretty much game-over for UK. As for this 'common wisdom', that's silly. Germany could make much better use of the time than the USSR.

And hey, even if Franco joins the Allies, how does that ruin this strategy? What's he gonna do, liberate France? Lol. Every BEF division in Spain is one less in North Africa. The whole point is to get peace with the UK before invading the USSR. This strategy pretty much guarantees that.

 

[Alliegorical]

I love how this thread has nothing to do with topic anymore

The topic has been beaten to death already, and the OP's crazy if he thinks the US is underpowered in HoI3. I once built nothing but IC runs until 1939, and then built 12 CVs, 8 BBs, 6 BCs (specially teched for speed, to hunt CVs), a gajillion screens, and Medium tanks till I ran out of manpower, plus a half-dozen divisions each of Marines, Paras, and Mountaineers, for urban combat and such. I had so many tank divisions that my Operation Unthinkable was jeopardized by the fact that all the ports in Europe couldn't ship in enough fuel for my Legion of Doom.

 

[dschoen]

Any questions?

I have some questions.

Why would Franco be so quick to support Hitler after the fall of France? He proved historically reluctant to plunge Spain into another conflict. Further, conservative circles in the British government had privately expressed hope that Franco would prevail against his Republican rivals. Lastly, the Germans pressured Spain after the western campaign and emerged with little to show for it. Halder writes contemptuously of Spain as a feckless and worthless partner.

How is Germany going to supply its industry during a pre-Barbarossa buildup lasting several years? Even with the addition of tremendous Grossraum in the west, Germans could only keep their economy afloat by "swindling their way through 1941," as Halder says. Where will they get coal? Britain is the nearest and most obvious supplier; are you assuming the Brits will both bow out of the war and fuel Hitler's war machine?

How about grain, cotton, manganese ore, chrome arrant, phosphate, asbestos, wood? The Soviet Union served as the chief supplier to German industry of all these goods. Do you think the Soviets will merrily ship Hitler the material he needs to build tanks for several years, even as the Germans position themselves suspiciously near the Soviet border. Even if the Soviets continue supplying the Germans as Britain nears collapse, why wouldn't Stalin reconsider his deal with the devil once he's the last great power standing between Hitler and total European hegemony?

Without Britain in the war, why would the Soviets have dismissed the obvious German buildup along their border as mere provocation? Stalin's willful disregard of the obvious and continual warning signs of Barbarossa was based in large part on his belief that Germany would not dare embroil itself in another two-front war. Isn't it reasonable to assume a massive German buildup along the Soviet border appears far more threatening if the USSR is the only great power contender left on the continent?

If the Soviets suspect a German attack, shouldn't we think the Red Army will perform better than it did in 1941, when it was caught de-mobilized and in extremely vulnerable forward positions? By the way, what are the Soviets going to be doing during Germany's two or three-year buildup? Twiddling their thumbs?

Considering the United States' inexorable move toward the Allies by 1940, why wouldn't America feel more compelled than ever to serve as the arsenal of democracy to keep Britain in the fight if it became clear Churchill was wavering? As Britain came closer to collapse, wouldn't the Americans get more involved than ever?

Even if Britain did fall, what's to assume the United States would not consider sending Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union? The United States historically laid the framework for direct aid to the Soviets even before Pearl Harbor. We're talking about great power politics, and America would have every possible incentive to ensure it was not surrounded by a hostile power in the Pacific and a hostile power in total control of mainland Europe.

 

[adam_grif]

Why would Franco be so quick to support Hitler after the fall of France? He proved historically reluctant to plunge Spain into another conflict.

Franco would have been happy to support Hitler if only he wasn't economically dependent on the US and western allies. Unless I've gone crazy, Franco sent Hitler a list of things he would need Hitler to supply in exchange for Spanish support. They couldn't, and the rest is history. After coming out of a civil war, their economy was in shambles, more or less.

 

[misterbean]

Franco would have been happy to support Hitler if only he wasn't economically dependent on the US and western allies. Unless I've gone crazy, Franco sent Hitler a list of things he would need Hitler to supply in exchange for Spanish support. They couldn't, and the rest is history. After coming out of a civil war, their economy was in shambles, more or less.

That list was so over the top that there was simply no way Germany would ever agree. Franco wanted to stay out of the war, but he also didn't want to paint a bull's eye on his back.

 

[Beagá]

I love how this thread has nothing to do with topic anymore

But the OP indeed has already been answered. If anything the US is even more powerful than in RL when led by a player (up to date land doctrines, tanks of the same quality as Germany etc etc). The divergence started when discussion began about if no Lend Lease would mean a soviet defeat or at least much bigger loss of territory, which in turn resulted in the last 6 pages and Canuck insisting that Germany had to put the soviets on the Peace table, instead of realizing that a SU pushed all the way to the Urals and factories bombed became irrelevant and barely threathening, like China was to Japan by 1939.

 

[misterbean]

I for one have yet to see a useful US AI. As the player, you know what you need to do, but the AI...less than useful.

It is barely able to keep hold of it's pacific bases, Midway changing hands every couple of months. The problem with the US is the two-ocean warfare. It is simply incapable of getting it done. So for HOI IV, I would like to see a capable AI.

 

[Beagá]

Who doesn´t

AI Japan also fails by garrisoning every bloody island with level 1 airbase and port. Meanwhile "Oh Hai Rabaul and Truk" and by 1942 you are invading Japan already.

 

[jdavis86]

Franco would have rolled over. So would Petain. It's not like German boots would be tromping through Spain itself. They were both terrified of Germany; you gotta look at it from their point of view: in 1941, staying good in Hitler's book is a no-brainer. Saying the Italians tried to take Malta for three years isn't saying much; the Italian Army couldn't fight its way out of a pizza shop. Regardless, with control of Tangiers, Malta wouldn't have supplies, and would fall easily. Without Malta, supplies to North Africa would be unmolested, guaranteeing a swift axis victory in that theatre, which is pretty much game-over for UK. As for this 'common wisdom', that's silly. Germany could make much better use of the time than the USSR.

And hey, even if Franco joins the Allies, how does that ruin this strategy? What's he gonna do, liberate France? Lol. Every BEF division in Spain is one less in North Africa. The whole point is to get peace with the UK before invading the USSR. This strategy pretty much guarantees that.

The problem with this is that historically Franco didn't roll over.

War exhausted Spain was fed because the British allowed it.

The Luftwaffe tried to take Malta for 3 years, and it didn't work.

What does an Axis Tangiers change for the RAF and Royal Navy? Or the big guns in Gibraltar? The rock is the key to the med for a reason.

Franco understood that taking Gibraltar was useless unless Hitler went through Turkey and closed the suez that way. That strategy would have worked.

Closing the med does not end the war for the United Kingdom. They would have fought on till the end, truly. It does make life tougher for the Soviet, however.

 

[misterbean]

Plus, like I said, it might have made Portugal antsy. And if they gave UK access to the African islands, I could just see Bomber Command setting up shop there. Would have been a fun ride for Germany trying to hold on to Tangiers.

 

[Manbearpig]

I didn't read all 13 pages, so this was probably already said, but in HoI3 weren't nations programmed to do certain things? I remember the US being programmed to build infrastructure, various buildings, and tech for most of the game. When that phase ends and they start actually producing an army, they became very powerful.

 

[Secret Master]

I for one have yet to see a useful US AI. As the player, you know what you need to do, but the AI...less than useful.

It is barely able to keep hold of it's pacific bases, Midway changing hands every couple of months. The problem with the US is the two-ocean warfare. It is simply incapable of getting it done. So for HOI IV, I would like to see a capable AI.

The US AI can win control of the ocean; let's give it full credit for that. It needs to utilize far more ships than a human, but ever time I play as Japan, I find myself outgunned the entire time, desperately trying to hold off superior naval forces. If the AI understood fleet composition better, it would be a lost cause. As it is, I still end up facing the prospect of being overwhelmed if I don't force a US surrender by 1943 or so. I can win after that, but there are times where my multiple main battle fleets do not have time to repair before the next onslaught.

Who doesn´t

AI Japan also fails by garrisoning every bloody island with level 1 airbase and port. Meanwhile "Oh Hai Rabaul and Truk" and by 1942 you are invading Japan already.

Well, you don't need Rabul or Truk to invade Japan. You can reach it from Iwo Jima and some other island whose name eludes me for the moment. You take Iwo Jima, rally your ships and forces there, land in Japan in a nice harbor with less than ideal supplies, and within two weeks at the most, supply problems disappear. Sure, Iwo Jima is a crappy port, but you just need to get in range.

And even if you wanted to wait until Iwo Jima had better airfields and ports, you'd still be in Tokyo in late 42.