Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Defending the Reich plausible?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Defending the Reich plausible?

    I orignially put this in games but I figured maybe it went better in the AH section.

    I love Panzer General II, and play it often, but when I think somehow the Nazis don't rule the Fatherland, I have to play the Defending the Reich scenario. Yes, I cheat, I'm not good at the game, except when I play Blitzkrieg and lose in Russia and go to Defending the Reich with my custom army. Let's break down my questions:

    1. Assume you start in 1942 and everything is historical to that point. Could victories at Stalingrad, Kursk, Selarno, Strasbourg and Budapest save the Reich?

    2. Alternatively consider Defending the Reich via Blitzkrieg. If you win Sealion 1940, Defending the Reich can't happen. Assuming though, you win crippling victories against the Brits at Malta and storm into Egypt (and yes I believe it could be done, difficult but doable), and score crippling victories against the Russians in 1941, could Defending the Reich actually SAVE the Reich?

    3. Could a commander ever feasibly been at all these battles, either method one or two?

    I ask because this AH story I keep talking about is heavily influenced by the Defending the Reich campaign.

    Thanks in advance.
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

  • #2
    I'm guessing it's not plausible? Then the question becomes, when is the last point where the Germans could negotiatiate a peace of any kind?
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Wolery View Post
      I'm guessing it's not plausible? Then the question becomes, when is the last point where the Germans could negotiatiate a peace of any kind?
      yes, June 1940. or October 1941 (with Russia).

      after Dec 1941, any lengthening of the war means nukes on Germany.
      "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

      Comment


      • #4
        Be quiet about Sealion working, or others will join in and you really don't want that.
        Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

        Comment


        • #5
          One, Sealion could have succeeded, because technically the smashing of France was impossible too, but it happened. The battle of Sedan 1940 has NEVER, as far as I know, been successfully pulled off in wargames, but it happened. But that's not what I'm asking

          If that's the case that 1941, why did Stalin try and negotiate with Hitler as late as 1943?

          I'm so sick of the converntional wisdom, this Soviet Juggernaut and America Conquers All bullcrap. What did we learn from Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm II? If you punch an American in the mouth hard enough, he goes home crying like a little b!tch and doesn't try anything for at least 15 years. The one exception is when our territory is being invaded, then we will fight to the death. It pains me to say that as a nationalistic firebrand, but it's true. Theorectically, if Hitler knocked the Americans around a few times, we'd let him have Europe, Roosevelt or no.
          How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
          275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

          Comment


          • #6
            By 42, the Germans were largely out of time, and thus mostly out of hope.

            The biggest detail, was they had Hitler buggering up every chance that came along.

            In a bizarre sort of way, we might have lost WW2 without Hitler's helpful bungling eh.
            Life is change. Built models for decades.
            Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
            I didn't for a long time either.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aries View Post
              By 42, the Germans were largely out of time, and thus mostly out of hope.

              The biggest detail, was they had Hitler buggering up every chance that came along.

              In a bizarre sort of way, we might have lost WW2 without Hitler's helpful bungling eh.

              for sure! he had a death wish. only not only for himself but for the German Nation and for Jews. he wanted to destroy both in an apocyliptic climax.

              always beware of mystical fanatics. (we have some around now too...)


              ---

              as for Sealion, Barbarossa. yes, they COULD have succeeded, but (especially for Sealion) the odds were really difficult to achieve the PSYCHOLOGICAL situation where the opponent conceded. France could have fought on, but it was broken in it's mind to fight. The same almost happened to the USSR and could have happened if, say, Moscow had fallen in the fall of 1941, perhaps, and it might have happened with Britain at Dunkirk, or if after Dunkirk, some Fallshirmjaegers storm southern England... who knows?
              "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

              Comment


              • #8
                Wolery "Sealion could have succeeded, because technically the smashing of France was impossible too, but it happened. The battle of Sedan 1940 has NEVER, as far as I know, been successfully pulled off in wargames, but it happened."
                Anything is possible and Im not trying to drag out the old sealion debate again but comparing the military defeat of France which involved the flanking of completely inadequate defences of the maginot line and the defeat of an ill equipped and ill prepared French /BEF army is not comparable with the logistical nightmare that was crossing the channel in late 1940. Its not the same. On the main point, Germany is defendable without the interference of Hitler in military matters but then there would be no war for there to be a need to defend the reich in the first place.
                Last edited by copenhagen; 08 Aug 07, 05:48.

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X