[WarInEur] Allied Production 39 to 40 CW OOB

[srm]

"they took the Germans to the edge
> of their supplies and locked them into a static battle where
> logistics were the major player in the battle."

That sums up WWII. Chuck, your own words! 

It was NOT some romantic notion of "mobility"

WWII was won by factories, not generals.

Consequently, haad France and England attrited down the so called blitzkrieg, their (and their allies')industrial capacity and ESPECIALLY their  access to masses of rawand human materials would  have bled Germany's. 

Just like WWI.


--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at dpcs.org> wrote:

> From: Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at dpcs.org>
> Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Allied Production 39 to 40 CW OOB
> To: "foufut at yahoo.com" <foufut at yahoo.com>, "warineur at mailman.halisp.net" <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
> Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 6:57 AM
> Oh I don't know maybe it's because they had their
> heads handed to them?!?!?! As for the English air assets
> they won the BoB because they managed to get the Germans
> into a tactical place of having limited fuel for combat,
> this caused them to have to rtb soon after the fights
> started.
> 
> If they had been in France that limit would not have been
> there and thus the 109s would have been more able to gain an
> advantage over the English air. The Germans would have bled
> them to death and still won the battle.
> 
> Mobility is the key and command control. The English and
> French were at best armatures when it came to combined arms
> tactical air power, thus the Germans might have lost a few
> more Stuka's but still the victory would have gone to
> the Germans simply because the English and the French did
> not understand or train in the combined arms mobile style of
> battle.
> 
> The English suffered from this in the North African
> campaigns early on and finally solved the problem the same
> way they did in the BoB, they took the Germans to the edge
> of their supplies and locked them into a static battle where
> logistics were the major player in the battle. But up till
> that point the Germans handled the English operationally
> very easily with the Brits thinking the Germans had them way
> out gunned in armor when it was the antitank shield that was
> doing the damage.
> 
> A day late and a dollar short was not solved till numerical
> advantage and control of the air was gained allowing better
> recons to be done.
> 
> It is the same advantage the Napoleon held for so long,
> mobility and intel of the enemy! The French applied the
> lessons of combined arms correctly as did the Germans, then
> the allies learned as time went on to counter those tactics.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net
> [mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net] On Behalf Of
> srm
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:06 PM
> To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net
> Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Allied Production 39 to 40 CW OOB
> 
> And the historical basis for these allegations by you,
> Chuck?
> 
> Short answer: Air power.
> 
> 90% of the 1940 German army was infantry. 6-5 vs 3-4 is
> ludicrous and ahistorical, and IS a 1970s-era "
> let's move the game along to 1941" device.
> 
> Had the British committed their FULL air power to France in
> 1940 (they did not), the so- called Blitzkrieg would have
> been a slugfest like 1914.
> 
> 
> How did that one turn out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 2/3/09, Chuck Sutherland
> <csutherland at dpcs.org> wrote:
> 
> > From: Chuck Sutherland <csutherland at dpcs.org>
> > Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Allied Production 39 to 40 CW
> OOB
> > To: "john_pace_ca at yahoo.com"
> <john_pace_ca at yahoo.com>,
> "warineur at mailman.halisp.net"
> <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 2:08 PM
> > The French Army is over modeled if anything, their
> movement
> > rates should be 2 or 3 as they were slow as tank out
> of gas
> > in their command control systems. They might have been
> ok
> > tactically at times but operationally they were out of
> their
> > league. Had they not fallen for the trap they would
> still
> > have been fixed and broken up. They allies had not
> solved
> > the mobility of the blitz yet, they had more and
> better
> > tanks but their combined arms was almost non-existent
> and
> > their command and control was about the same. They
> were a
> > day late and a dollar short to almost every critical
> battle.
> >
> > As for building Panzer's, they are also under
> modeled
> > and with the quick step defense and the over modeled
> anti
> > tank effects the Germans are better off having as many
> 6-5
> > as they can for attrition attacks on the Russians
> instead of
> > building out the armor.
> >
> > The Germans air pool can be fixed by fixing the
> Russian
> > production to up the number of air by double. That
> will
> > attrition the Germans.
> >
> > If anything the Frogs need to be 2 strength units not
> 4.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net
> > [mailto:warineur-bounces at mailman.halisp.net] On Behalf
> Of
> > John Pace
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:02 PM
> > To: warineur at mailman.halisp.net
> > Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Allied Production 39 to 40 CW
> OOB
> >
> > Please Henry, I am definitely far from a panzer
> pusher.  My
> > personal belief, Hitler was dammed lucky in 1940 that
> the
> > Allies fell into a trap.  For the germans to win their
> > historic 7 week campaign, the allies would have to
> play by
> > the historic trap and leave the Sedan backdoor open in
> the
> > Ardensse while they pile into Belgium, expecting a
> replay of
> > WWI.  Like all WWII games, the French Army is
> unhistorical
> > weakened to ensure France falls in 1940, otherwise
> there is
> > no 1941 Russian invasion, and the Hitler European tour
> so
> > beloved by every WWII game.
> >
> > My grip is with the German production.  Right nor
> wrong,
> > IMHO, the point about Allied production personnel
> points is
> > that unfortunately it encourages the Germans to
> totally
> > abandon the UBoat war and produce panzers instead.
> > Churchill says that the UBoat war was the one thing
> that
> > gave him nightmares.
> >
> > There are so many gamy aspect of even the original SPI
> game
> > that needs to be addressed.  One example is the Axis
> > abandonment of Libya. Even if the CW occupies Tripoli
> in
> > 1940 as a result, there is nothing he can do until
> 1942 when
> > a US-lead invasion of Vichy North Africa leads to
> Sardinia
> > and Scilly within 12 hexes of allied sea-invasion.  I
> would
> > like, if Tripoli is allied controlled, then the CW be
> able
> > to convert Vichy units into Free French using CW IR/MR
> and
> > be able to invade Vichy North Africa without US
> divisions
> > before 1942.
> >
> > Another aspect is the strategic airwar, allied escorts
> vs
> > german interceptors.  The Allies are limited to
> transferring
> > a fixed number of AP to allied escorts (and when they
> are
> > shot down, it is a full rebuild at 2Pers & 8Manuf
> rather
> > than 4Manuf rebuild).  With players being able to hold
> back
> > their AP by refusing to submit them to slaughter in
> inferior
> > air superiorty situation. The Germans can ensure they
> have
> > an unhistoric large pool of AP from which they can
> draw
> > 25%-50% (or more) into interceptors, ensuring that
> they can
> > absolutely slaughter the out-numbered allied escorts
> and
> > bombers.
> >
> > As to Allied production, it is definitely a step in
> the
> > right direction, everybody have their own views on it
> (and
> > all other aspects of the game).  Maybe, we could
> reduce the
> > effect on CW manufacturing points, and introduce an
> impact
> > on CW personnel points, bringing CW Manuf Points more
> in
> > line with Personnel Points.  If the Germans abandon
> the
> > UBoat war, then the CW will have INCREASED Personnel
> Points,
> > reflecting increased CW mobilization because the
> civilian
> > population are more supportive of the war against
> Hitler.
> > Thus, the CW would have enough personnel points to
> utilize
> > those otherwise excess useless manufacturing points.
> >
> > Leading to an EVEN STRONGER CW force if the Germans
> decide
> > more panzers against Russia instead of UBoats against
> > Britain.
> >
> > Personally, even in 1970s, I never, never, absolutely
> never
> > used the Allied reinforcement track.  Instead from the
> > original SPI player notes, I used the allied
> production cost
> > list to convert those otherwise useless excess APs
> into more
> > useful units.
> >
> >
> > Of course, we must be careful not to upset game
> balance.
> > Unfortunately, in the current game I find the Germans
> need
> > those extra panzers (with 10 attack strength) to
> defeat the
> > French in the 1940 slugfest.  Maybe we could reduce
> the
> > number of rivers in France, which my French army
> defends
> > behind to double their strength, and increase the
> French to
> > 4-4 inf divs, which will encourage the French not to
> > immediately abandon Northern France and the Beligum
> border.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WarInEur mailing list
> > WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> > http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur