If the Germans have managed to conquer Moskow in 1941 the USSR might have collapsed...........
And we wouldn't be here posting.....
-
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.
If the Germans have managed to conquer Moskow in 1941 the USSR might have collapsed...........
And we wouldn't be here posting.....
That was the due to the rather less sexy coal fields in the Don-Bass area had been overrun. The Soviet economy depended heavily on them.
It was both. The Don-Bass was the more critical loss, but the loss of the Northern Oil fields made a bad situation rather worse.
where exactly were those Northern Oil Fields?
What % of soviet oil were those fields pumping out?
Well... If everyone is teaming up on those Russians I´ll just have to be Finland. And I´ll create Suur-Suomi composed of all the northern ugric people... And, we´ll send some commie-bastards to Siberia...
Originally posted by Siegebreaker
Can you buy tanks from another country in HoI?
*Planning to scrap the tank research program*
Hmm.. Perhaps..
*Halting production of Chi-Ha's*
Where they'll get stuck on the bayonets of my Arisaka 6.5mm rifles.
Why does every one invade Russia in the summer? Its a really bad idea, both Napoleon and Hitler learned that the hard way. I say invade in the winter when your supply lines are the best. Then by the time you get to Moscow (and almost every other city of importance) it is summer and your troops do not die of starvation and frost bite. This would have really worked for Napoleon because in the winter what is there to burn?
Hmm.. You have a good point! We invade in summer!! Err... Winter!
But, if you played as Japan, you would want to invade in summer, expecting to get to Moscow on a fine autumn day, several years later... As long as it wasn't waving a German flag by then, and it would be hard (And wasteful) to travel through Siberia and all of Russia to get to Moscow with Japan. Actually, it would be a complete waste of time.. OK.. Leave Moscow to Hitler... Anyways, good point Delinquent Rock! Meiji-Tenno
Because it is easier to move troops in warm weather then deep snows ? becaue equipment and horses work better in the summer ?
but..if you invade in winter....your troops will die of frostbite and starvation..
Why would you have to burn anyting? Since there is nothing the French still would have starved, just alot earilier
More good points..
I think what he means is to invade in winter so by the time your men get to really cold areas, it will be warmer. Perhaps it would be best to start in late winter/early spring, and attack really fast and try to win before the next winter.
Meiji-Tenno
No, it should be possible to have all-minor alliances. A Scandinavian pact, or some Mitteleuropa variation like the Little Entente, or perhaps a neutrality bloc in South America would all be interesting to have to contend with.
Originally posted by Meiji-Tenno
More good points..
I think what he means is to invade in winter so by the time your men get to really cold areas, it will be warmer. Perhaps it would be best to start in late winter/early spring, and attack really fast and try to win before the next winter.
Meiji-Tenno
The problem with attacking in the spring is the same problem that you have in the fall. Rain and mud. It might not be as easy as it first sounds, starting an offensive in late winter/early spring.
OK! More good points. So... I don't attack Russia!
*melting scrap into ammunition*
Meiji-Tenno
Because the summer is the best time for an offensive full mobility no tanks freezing up or ground so hard it cant be dug into with out proper equipment. By the time the summer comes the enemy will have adjusted and the attacker will have lost the initiative so the defender can do what it likes while the attacker has to dig in and lick it's wounds and wait until it's units have been refitted while fending off a counterattack.
Well. The Germans had definetly NOT lost the initiative in -42 (as shown by the quite succesfull summer offensive).
Russia is impossible to invade with armed forces... Except now we can BUY it!(as soon as the laws are reformed so foreigners may own land...) Hehheh...
Invading in the summer when its warm was a good strategy, thier arrogance was not. Invading in the winter would surely be a surprise, however, it is notthe optimal time to invade because of the weather which in turn would slow down the advance. Germany, to be successfull, against such over all odds, factoring in the terrain, had to act swiftly. An invasion during winter would negate the one thing the Germans needed, a fast advance.
I understand what you are saying, "attack in winter while supply lines are best." I would assume you are meaning that the supply lines would be short at the onset of the attack and by the time Summer came along and the supply lines are longer, it will be easier and allow a faster push.
This is not a bad idea butthe fact would still remain that Germany needed a fast push and invading in winter would have stalled that plan. I doubt the Germans would have gotten as far as they did if launched in the winter because it would be easier to fight delaying battles for the Russians, thus bogging the German army down faster into the war of attrition which it had no hopes of winning.
The Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland) discussed a defense pact in 1940. This was at the end of the first "Winter War" in Finland. It didn't happen, and of course, soon after that Denmark and Norway were invaded.
It was said that part of the reason they couldn't agree was that Norway exhibited a happy go lucky attitude, ie. they couldn't imagine anyone would want to attack them. Sweden were also reticent to enter a defense pact, as they didn't want to send troops to fight the Russians in Finland.
I'd like to be able to re-enact this and see what might have changed if this pact had been signed. Finland would not have had to turn to Germany for help probably, and who knows if Germany would have succeeded in taking Norway. Denmark was probably lost in either case.
Last edited:
Nordic defence pact
I`ve never heard of this, do you have a link to some online info? Sure is an interesting "What-if".
I`ve never heard of this, do you have a link to some online info? Sure is an interesting "What-if".
Re: Nordic defence pact
Certainly, this article references it. The article has a political agenda, but if you keep that in mind there are a few interesting nuggets of information in there, especially about how the Swedish ruling (then and now) social democratic party viewed their role.
The quote in question is this:
If you can't read Swedish, it says:
From the committee for a Nordic defense pact, just before the fateful day of April 9th 1940, there was a striking description of how the Nordic governments approach differed: "There was Finnish bitterness, Norwegian carefree attitude, Danish resignation, and Swedish soberness."
Certainly, this article references it. The article has a political agenda, but if you keep that in mind there are a few interesting nuggets of information in there, especially about how the Swedish ruling (then and now) social democratic party viewed their role.
The quote in question is this:
If you can't read Swedish, it says:
From the committee for a Nordic defense pact, just before the fateful day of April 9th 1940, there was a striking description of how the Nordic governments approach differed: "There was Finnish bitterness, Norwegian carefree attitude, Danish resignation, and Swedish soberness."