OHM

When Tier 3 comes

79 posts in this topic

I think the tiger in the photograph is at Vimoutier France, I had my photograph sat on the gun  a la Wittman(LOL), don't know if the photo is still around the house somewhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, it is the Tiger (ch.nr. 251 113) at Vimoutiers.

Purchased by the town from a scrapdealer in the mid 70`s, after an article in "After the Battle" Magazine.

Patched up visually, not sure about that camo beeing realistic.

It is thought to have belonged to Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 102 and left behind and partially demolished by its own crew in -44.

This is August 44, the Falaise gap and headlong retreat to the North. Possible Commander SS Unterscharfuhrer Reisske.

The location is actually on a steep hill, so it may have just broken down through mech failure, it was going uphill. 

 Or it may be the common summer 44 running out of fuel scenario.

These days it is cordoned off, at least it was when I saw it last summer.

The rear end is just welded up with steel plates to recreate the original form.

 But it sure looks like nothing else when it is suddenly there on the roadside in the middle of nowhere.

 

Edited by egilen
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be fun to get to play with some limited captured material.

But CRS said NO the one time I asked 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

Would be fun to get to play with some limited captured material.

But CRS said NO the one time I asked 

finally - something i can agree with you on. however, i'd stipulate ground only. very few occurrences of captured planes being used in combat and I'm guessing this has to do with the speed of combat, even with markings its hard to ID planes at speed. The Italians used a captured P-38 to shoot down at least one B-24. I know KG 200 DID operate captured allied planes however these were mostly recon or transport missions. I'm not aware of any combat missions conducted where munitions were expended.

 

I'd also do it as a certain percentage per town/flag capped would get 'pooled'. once the pool is full you get X of A,B,C units. I'd preference AT guns, then tanks. 

Example:

Cap 10 towns, get a few guns and tanks to use.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jwilly said:

And for that matter, why do American forces enter in old T3?  American ground forces were committed to the fight against Germany as of Operation Torch in November 1942. Obviously if France hasn't fallen, those forces wouldn't go to England then Morocco, they'd just go directly to France. So shouldn't any US forces enter in new T5 instead of new T6?

Bingo, and as a largely intact France is an easy shipping destination, perhaps one division ought to be expedited in the first half of 42, then 2 in the second half, then 3 in 43.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, madrebel said:

finally - something i can agree with you on. however, i'd stipulate ground only. very few occurrences of captured planes being used in combat and I'm guessing this has to do with the speed of combat, even with markings its hard to ID planes at speed. The Italians used a captured P-38 to shoot down at least one B-24. I know KG 200 DID operate captured allied planes however these were mostly recon or transport missions. I'm not aware of any combat missions conducted where munitions were expended.

 

I'd also do it as a certain percentage per town/flag capped would get 'pooled'. once the pool is full you get X of A,B,C units. I'd preference AT guns, then tanks. 

Example:

Cap 10 towns, get a few guns and tanks to use.

I bet we agree on more things then we both can imagine. Like I said sometimes I'm a bit over the top. And it might come over wrong in written form.

I'm well aware that you guys die as fast as we do , I know cause my survival rate is rather short when I sit in a Matilda and I'm always left scratching my head cause when I'm on the other side it never seems that way. 

I run into the same crap when I put on Allied Uniform as I encounter on Axis just the names change.

 

Yes no planes,  AAA ,ATG and Tanks only

I kinda looked at it like a golden ticket kinda deal , here and there something pops up in the spawn pool and whoever is lucky gets it. But I like your idea too. 

Just think it should be really limited maybe 1 item of each , every 10 towns taken like you said , and it could be something else every 10 towns. 

 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, blggles said:

Bingo, and as a largely intact France is an easy shipping destination, perhaps one division ought to be expedited in the first half of 42, then 2 in the second half, then 3 in 43.

Who says America enters the war at all?

France doesn't fall in six weeks, so Germany does not invade USSR. USSR does not remove majority of eastern army to defend Moscow. Japan cannot occupy French Indo China, Japan cannot risk Soviet recapturing Korea and Manchuko because huge Soviet Army is still poised on it's Korean frontier, so no Pearl Harbour. No Pearl harbour, well Germany is not going to declare war on USA.

So who says US troops should be any where Europe? :) 

Why not just leave the US deployment dates as is? Surely this is one of those, if it aint broke situations?

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, blggles said:

Bingo, and as a largely intact France is an easy shipping destination, perhaps one division ought to be expedited in the first half of 42, then 2 in the second half, then 3 in 43.

But, but, but.... I want to pick up a BAR, oh and a Thompson, :D 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I does like the bar, both types. :D

And are you calling Japan chicken?!?!?

Sounds like you're calling them chicken... 

Just sayin...

:popcorn:

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ian77 said:

so Germany does not invade USSR.

Interesting idea, probably 0 relation to game, but
if Germany does not do an about face on the USSR, then USSR technically remains an axis friend, if not ally
which would disallow Japan from doing anything that would be seen as aggression towards the USSR because
it could risk the support of Germany.

USSR instead of fighting on the eastern front could aid Germany in sweeping south, assuming they could agree on how to divvy things up and what not.

Japan, i am not sure what they do?
Continue to press the pacific i guess?

Somehow though, at the end of all things, i still foresee the two (Germany and USSR) going toe to toe
Probably nuking each other over middle east oil fields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ian77 said:

Who says America enters the war at all?

France doesn't fall in six weeks, so Germany does not invade USSR. USSR does not remove majority of eastern army to defend Moscow. Japan cannot occupy French Indo China, Japan cannot risk Soviet recapturing Korea and Manchuko because huge Soviet Army is still poised on it's Korean frontier, so no Pearl Harbour. No Pearl harbour, well Germany is not going to declare war on USA.

So who says US troops should be any where Europe? :) 

Why not just leave the US deployment dates as is? Surely this is one of those, if it aint broke situations?

 

S! Ian

While not arguing for earlier American involvement, I would point out that Germany and the USSR were going to have a war, regardless of whether or not Germany went with Barbarossa.  Stalin was planning on invading germany sometime in '42---and if the germans were stuck in France, there is no reason to believe that timetable would have been moved back.

Thus the soviet army would not be poised to threaten the Japanese empire, and Pearl Harbor still happens.  France being fully involved in holding onto, well, France, would have allowed Japan to take French Indo-China---if not in a straight up occupy, then in a relatively short fight, as France could not hope to carry on defense of the homeland and IndoChina simultaneously.

 

Getting into, and perhaps designing campaigns around, the 'what ifs' available to us in this game are interesting things to ponder...

 

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ian77 said:

Who says America enters the war at all?

France doesn't fall in six weeks, so Germany does not invade USSR. USSR does not remove majority of eastern army to defend Moscow. Japan cannot occupy French Indo China, Japan cannot risk Soviet recapturing Korea and Manchuko because huge Soviet Army is still poised on it's Korean frontier, so no Pearl Harbour. No Pearl harbour, well Germany is not going to declare war on USA.

So who says US troops should be any where Europe? :) 

Why not just leave the US deployment dates as is? Surely this is one of those, if it aint broke situations?

 

S! Ian

Some good points here.  If France had managed to hang on then maybe the  US may not have entered the war in late 1941. The Japanese attacked the US because they were certain the Soviets were not going to attack Japan.  If the USSR is not at war with Germany maybe Japan does not attack the US.  However, with the oil embargo on Japan, Japan may still have attacked regardless.  The Japanese were facing a situation that if they did not attack the US in December 1941, they would not have enough oil to ever attack the US (basically now or never)

What if history its always an interesting exercise.   I believe that a Soviet-German war and a Japanese-American war were going to happen no matter what, just the timing was up for debate, and in the case of Japan and the US, the oil embargo on Japan left little for debate in timing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The German Army was quite small from the late 30s through mid 1940. Practically the entire army was committed to the France/Belgium/Netherlands attack. The 1940 Germans didn't have the time and resources to expand it using traditional methods, i.e. create formations from scratch, train at small unit levels until somewhat proficient, conduct large scale exercises for further training, then begin utilizing the new units in low-threat contexts until they gain some seasoning. It was only the extremely rapid success and very low officer/noncom/specialist losses of the Poland, Norway, Netherlands and France/Belgium fighting that allowed the Germans instead to expand using the cadre method, in which most combat-experienced divisions were stripped of their tactical leaders, who were replaced at all levels by their second-in-commands; and these tactical cadres, who had fought together and proved their abilities, became the core around which a new division was formed. They then could fast-track the tactical training of their new formations because of their leadership-unit experience. In some instances this was done with two levels of tactical leaders, and in some cases a cadre began the process of training up a new division, then once the division's new second tier leaders were good enough, part of the cadre was split out to start up yet another new division. This process was intensively pursued between July 1940 and the beginning of the Balkans campaign; during this period, the German army increased in size by several multiples. 

The capture of weapons and particularly trucks in the France campaign, and Germany's own very low losses, also were crucial.

It was only this expansion of the number of German divisions that made the attack on the S.U. possible...not even considering success. Without the subsequent eight months of relative peace in which to form and prepare additional divisions, and the very low leadership fatalities and weapon losses vs. gains of the French/Belgian campaign, the German army would not have had enough divisions even to cover the attacking frontage against the S.U.

If Germany in 1941 still had its May 1940 force level committed in France, with ongoing leadership and weapon losses, there wouldn't even have been enough divisions in the east to form a defensive line against the S.U.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought of something
If germany does not attack the USSR, then perhaps the USSR does not become a not quite wanted ally of the US France and Britain.
Which means no food trucks chemicals steel planes tanks etc being sent.

Wonder how much that would factor into things?

Also, lets say that Stalin instead attacks germany some time in 42, but until then continues to pitch in on the axis land grabs etc
wonder what effect that might have on the allied sentiment towards taking them on as an ally?

perhaps you get germany and the ussr both defending on 2 fronts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

Just thought of something
If germany does not attack the USSR, then perhaps the USSR does not become a not quite wanted ally of the US France and Britain.
Which means no food trucks chemicals steel planes tanks etc being sent.

Wonder how much that would factor into things?

Also, lets say that Stalin instead attacks germany some time in 42, but until then continues to pitch in on the axis land grabs etc
wonder what effect that might have on the allied sentiment towards taking them on as an ally?

perhaps you get germany and the ussr both defending on 2 fronts?

Stalin was kind of content to pick up some Polish land for free and continue restructuring the army after the officer purges. Didn't really need the additional resources, either. The Allies and the Soviet Union only cooperated under the whole "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy later but not right now so here, have some stuff" thing. The partnership wasn't particularly friendly anyway, as there was a lot of "actually do something to help please" from both sides.

I don't think Stalin would have been prepared to hit Germany or would have wanted to, either. The Soviet Union had its butt handed to it by the Finns in what should have been a very easy fight, so I believe they'd be more gunshy about pursuing a modern, professional military. The Red Army would probably just continue development and focus on maintaining control of the country. Without the pressure of war to serve as a cohesive agent on the people, there would probably be a good deal more issues on the home front at that time.

Additionally, there wouldn't really be an ideological casus belli for Stalin or the Soviet Union, given that the political system in power in Germany wasn't that different from the one in Russia, given the heavy focus on nationalizing and directly controlling the manufacturing sector.

So I don't really see that chain of events happening unless something big changed, and just not attacking the USSR doesn't really cut it for me. Could be wrong on some stuff, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany should be assumed to attack the Balkans, Greece and then the S.U. starting eight months, or the next Spring, whichever is later, after they defeat France.

German however could reinforce Italy in Libya with a weak division or two even while France fights on. The French naval bases in Toulon and Mers el Kebir are a long way from Sicily, Tunis, Tripoli and Bengasi. 

Germany only could conduct the Crete airborne attack (historically May, 1941) by pulling all of their airborne and mountain troops and their transport aircraft out of the France fighting.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus in a prolonged fight with France the Gerries never get the panther as designed because they haven't squared off against the T-34.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, blggles said:

Thus in a prolonged fight with France the Gerries never get the panther as designed because they haven't squared off against the T-34.

But logically they'd eventually recognize that the Tiger was goshawful expensive, and develop a cheaper tank with similar functionality. We just don't know what it would have been like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany not attacking the SU would have been a very interesting situation since all/most resources would have gone to N. Africa and the Suez would have fallen and the Middle East would be dominated by the Axis.

Would the Soviet Union have been content with dividing spheres of influence with German in the Middle East and possibly dominate Persia while Germany holds Iraq and Arabia? I think that is a big unknown, as well as the status of Turkey in all of this. 

What I think is clear is that the British would have no way to stop Germany in the Middle East. The supply convoys would be too log and too vulnerable, especially if Germany made a pact with Turkey and had a full land corridor.

I also think that the United States would have entered the war in this situation since they knew the vital strategic importance of Middle East oil and wouldn't want it outside of Anglo-American influence/control. So even without Japan attacking the US, I still see the US entering the war in ~1942 mostly to defend Mideast oil interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, aismov said:

Germany not attacking the SU would have been a very interesting situation since all/most resources would have gone to N. Africa and the Suez would have fallen and the Middle East would be dominated by the Axis.

Would the Soviet Union have been content with dividing spheres of influence with German in the Middle East and possibly dominate Persia while Germany holds Iraq and Arabia? I think that is a big unknown, as well as the status of Turkey in all of this. 

What I think is clear is that the British would have no way to stop Germany in the Middle East. The supply convoys would be too log and too vulnerable, especially if Germany made a pact with Turkey and had a full land corridor.

I also think that the United States would have entered the war in this situation since they knew the vital strategic importance of Middle East oil and wouldn't want it outside of Anglo-American influence/control. So even without Japan attacking the US, I still see the US entering the war in ~1942 mostly to defend Mideast oil interests.

Could a pro War President have overcome what was essentially a pro Neutrality Congress and electorate?

 

S! ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think so. Oil was a global market then as it is now. Prices go up, mix in a little fear mongering how the devious Germans are going to cut off the world from Middle East oil, some personal appeals to members of congress by the British and I think it would have happened.

I think the pro-neutrality side had no interest in engaging a continental European war, but if greater strategic interests were in play I think the tube would have changed very quickly. Just like how the Western Allies didn't give a crap about Czechoslovakia and Poland, the United States didn't care about France, Belgium, etc. since it was just a "regional" issue for most Americans.

At least that is how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.