Strategical changes you'd like

Axis side: Id change the attack on Russia to an attack through Turkey (unless it was willing to join the axis) and encircle the british in Egypt. With the aid of Iraqs rebellion and Irans. That way, the british would lose their petrol and the Russians their southern supply line when I attack them in 42.


Allied side: Id clear the sheldt before the port of Antwerp gets bungled. Quite a mess they had there.

 

Hey Desertwolf, I split this topic from the "Fly on the wall" thread because I liked the idea but it didn't fit in the "observation" frame of the topic it was split from. These are actual strategical changes.

I agree with you on not frontally assaulting the Soviet Union in 1941. Napoleon's campaign in 1812 showed that taking Moscow won't defeat the Russians. Rather, by moving around and invading through the Caucasus you hit them where it hurts, in their oil and grain supply.

 

Does anyone in this forum really thinks that Hitler has this kind of political or military patience? The early successes in Poland and in France merely fueled his addiction for instant gratifications, he wasn't gonna accept any proposals other than an all-out frontal assault on Russia.

 

No prob there Roel !


What would be ur stategical changes?

 

Axis- i would attack pearl harbor also wiping out all the oil wells before i send in infantry troops to attack the harbor

 

Well, being the japanese, I wouldn't exactly wipe out the oil wells; they're what you started it for!

Desertwolf: I named some in the first reply... And this one here! I'd definitely let the air attack on PH be followed by an amphibious assault.

 

I would really like to know how you do this landing.

 

An amphibious assault on Pearl?

But that would entail a much more number of ships in the task force, actually, it would seem like an armada!
Such a force could not possibly go undetected until pearl.

 

a few thousand men should be able to do the job, but how much army personal are there in pearl? but an amphibious attack could easily occupy pearl at the state of all the servicemen there...

 

There were two US Army divisions in Hawaii on Decemebr 7th, one of very good quality. Plus thousands of other marine and navy personnel. An attempeted landing by the Japanese would likley have ended in disaster for them.

 

Plug the Ardenne just after the Panzers came through.

 

And have a big ring of AT & AA guns sitting there waiting for the Germans!
Along with a sizeable chunk of RAF fighter command...

 

Hindsight is great.

 

Are you talking about the 1940 or the 1944 breakthrough?

In either case, the German infantry divisions certainly took care to build up defensive shoulders on the flanks of the breakthrough, so that plugging it would require a huge lengthening of the front. Where are the troops to do it?

 

And after 2 days of advancing by the panzers - where was the flanking infantry?

 

Why not bring the remnants of the 28th to kick the armies flank?

 

An interesting idea, seeing how one regiment is encircled at St. Vith, another reduced to about batallion size in Bastogne, and a third being battered and kicked back by 7th Army...

Indeed Ricky, the Americans here did what they could, with the trops they had, but they simply didn't have enough men in a state of usefulness (panic!) to just seal the gap.

 

There were Americans in France in 1940?
But I suppose the same applies - the whole new style of war had completely befuzzled the allied troops. There were even reports of troops retreating at the sound of their own supporting armour approaching!

 

well, u can always call the native american indians to elp by running around the Panthers on horseback.

P.S. couldent help myself, back to the topic!

 

The 28th Infantry division was being pushed around by the Fifth Panzer Army as well as the 7th Army.

In hindsight, a counter attack along Skyline Ridge at the base of the Bulge as Patton wanted would have been better. Better yet, would have been to let the Germans get to the Meuse and then attack.