June 26, 1944. What if this was the situation on the Eastern Front, and the Western Front happened historically up to D-Day? Can Germany win the war from this position?
Note: Moscow and Stalingrad are both fairly securely in German hands. Finland was lost to the Soviets.
No. The krauts are weak down near stalingrad where they can actually exploit a breakthrough and their one local superiority is up north where they'll run smack into fortress leningrad and those miserable forests. Maybe if they withdrew a few and tried to cut off that bulge in the center they'd do some damage (with a clip!!!!), but assuming the soviets have a stacked reinforcement table those krauts are probably done
>>990741
pic related. I just hope those guys up north aren't all leg infantry
-t. experienced wargamer
>>990766
>going for random pockets
>not making a kill drive to Leningrad
>>990222
What game is this?
>>990781
Advanced Tactics Gold
>>990766
Better, less complicated plan. Just hold everywhere south of Moscow and focus on collapsing the northern front.
>>990810
Forgot pic
>>990222
Considering that even UK alone outproduced Germans in every aspect they probably wouldn't.
The stalemate on the Eastern front would be good for Eastern Europe though.
>>990868
>Considering that even UK alone outproduced Germans
>>990929
Check the numbers and you'll see it's true. Of course it doesn't matter much when they have US backing on top of them and US is what you can call outproducing enemy to hell and beyond.
>>990778
the reason why you take immediate pockets is to cut the level of local reinforcement possible to impair your drive. If you simply were to bypass those units after a breakthrough you would run smack into leningrad, have insufficient reserves to take it (because they're holding the front), and also be unable to displace the front via the pocket method I've just mentioned
the key to breakthrough is first to gobble up little holes until the enemy has a big unavoidable hole. Of course it can't be done forever, but any movement without doing this is doomed
>>990810
the northern front has terrain to prevent it from collapsing and sufficient reserves to allow an easy fallback. They'll hit the cities and hold a rugged defense if the AI is competent. Meanwhile the south is going to get eaten up and reinforcements will replenish the low losses you inflicted
also; if you think you can make a breakout while holding moscow across a river with no local advantage and then go through dense terrain against your own supply lines you are fucking crazy. But I can't see the local unit TYPES (they appear to be armor near moscow for krauts) so may be missing the nuances that matter
>>990933
Why don't you link the numbers you lying retard?
>>990938
I would provide more info if I could, I appreciate your input. I am winning but feel very precarious.
>>990222
What are some (not too complicated) wargames for a beginner to get into?
>>990969
wargames I will rec:
SPWAW & WINSPMBT (ww2 and postwar tactical hex sims running on the same system. High points include scenario/campaign volume, armor models, respectable map editor, and the fact that it's FREE. SPWAW is more polished, but SPMBT has an incredible array of units/nation. HIGH LEARNING CURVE)
ARMORED BRIGADE (rts bigade-level cold war combat. I think it plays similar to the WARGAME franchise although those I have not played. Freeware. Armor emphasis, with very merciless kill dynamics)
TACOPS (real time with orders also on a brigadish scale, in-service professional military sim. Upsides include: IT'S MILLITARY! WOWZ. Downsides include: holy shit this can be tedious and merciless. Not free)
TOAW III (operational level hex wargame, not cheap but has a ton of scenarios and you might be able to get TOAW I freeware. Flexible mechanics mean implementation possible at all levels of combat, but most scenarios are monster ww2 shit which can get tedious. On the plus side, a detailed model of unit composition and very micromanagement-friendly autism in a playable package. Fairly wide range of scenarios from napoleonic to modern although they tend towards MONSTER)
SEMPER FI (company level as in each unit is a company hex wargame simulating hypothetical US marine operations. Nobody has ever heard of this one but it's a piece of my childhood that I LOVE. Easy scenario ed and a very natural fire/command system. Simple to play)
probably more but I've forgot. Sorz if they're not exactly simple, you should probably just go for tactics gold since it's a dumbed down TOAW from what I've heard
>>991000
thanks, will check them out
Also any good games set in North Africa theatre?
>>991030
I can't recommend that one specifically although TOAW and SPWAW do cover it
>>990868
But the Germans had tech-wizardry!
>>990222
Your question is an odd one OP, simply because if the Axis are doing ahistorically well on the eastern front, the loss of Finland seems abnormal, unless maybe the Soviets had greater success than historically in the Winter war.
Regardless, I'm going to modify your assumption; Moscow and Stalingrad are not that important in and of themselves, especially if the Soviets have had time to evacuate vital infrastructure away from them: What's important is the overall balance of force on the Eastern Front, which I take it is supposed to be considerably in the Axis favor by this time.
>Can Germany win the war from this position?
No. It will be longer, and it will be far, far bloodier, but Germany will still lose. The Western Allies aren't interested in any peace that leaves the Nazi government in place, and there is still no way to really strike at them. You have the ever-intensifying strategic bombing war, which has crippled the Luftwaffe if things in the air are going historically up to 1944, which will go nuclear in 1945 if the Germans don't lose before then.
This also means that the interdiction bombing is still in place in France, crushing rail links everywhere. Even if the Germans have 2-3 times as many troops to commit to the western Front, they're going to have a very hard time moving them on the operational level, and that means you're still likely to get the beachhead, you're still likely to have the reinforcement, and you're still likely to have the breakout. It will be slower, that's all.
Predicted Nazi collapse in late 1946, after several cities are nuked. Open question as to whether or not there's a successful July 20th plot a second time around as things get worse.
>>992956
Well damn. So it's all hopeless as soon as the US enters the war...
>>993137
It was pretty hopeless from the get go, to be honest, and only a huge stroke of luck* that they managed to prevail in France and get the whole ball rolling.
They were always operating on the margins, and never really had a viable means of striking at the heart of the UK, let alone the U.S. Put a total war on top of that where there is only one standing at the end of it, and the question becomes when they lose, not if they lose.
Realistically, the only way Germany can "Win" WW2 is to alter the premises to the point where it's barely recognizable as WW2, fight some offensives, win big, get a favorable peace, go home.
>>993143
Or alternatively, nukes. I wonder what would happen if London got nuked. I think the British still would not surrender and the US would ship over 20 nukes and turn Germany into a radioactive wasteland.
>>993150
>Or alternatively, nukes.
Giving Germany nuclear weapons requires enormous alterations to the timeline. IRL, Heisenberg hadn't even gotten to the point where Fermi was in 1942 when the war ended. And it's a long way to go from a self-sustaining nuclear reaction to being able to build a stable bomb.
Then you have delivery, a 1st gen a-bomb needed to be carried by a large, 4 engined bomber, which means that the Luftwaffe needs an entirely different direction of research starting in the mid-30s to get one available by the war's timeframe, and that means your extremely effective CAS is probably going to suffer.
And lastly, I don't know what the state of uranium stocks close enough for Germany to access was. Go look up on nukemap, try plotting a Hiroshima bomb on some major cities. It's actually not as much destruction as you might think. You'd need several just to blow up a target the size of London, and I don't know how many bombs Germany could churn out, or how reliably they could deliver them.
>I wonder what would happen if London got nuked. I think the British still would not surrender and the US would ship over 20 nukes and turn Germany into a radioactive wasteland.
Very likely, although if done early enough in the war, it might break the British will. If this is like 1944 though, no way in hell.
>>990868
UK didn't outproduce Germany.
>>990222
Supply lines from German to Russia were becoming unmanageable. and the occupation in Russia would crumble.
Russia size and tundra are its biggest threat even today with all this tech bullshit the Russian Taiga is fucking brutal mud and ice.
ground Mush for tanks,
german troops morale low as fuck
eastern european conscrips wernt worth a fuck
afrika corps troops that were italian werent worth a fuck
the elite were too few too tucked away back in germany. and way too late.
>>994729
He's right though. The only hope Germany had at getting peace is knocking the USSR out within the first year of the eastern front. Thats the only way the Allies come to the tables in Europe. Bar that, froom 1939, you can only have a Europe thats more Capitalistic or Communist.
