WWII Hypothetical: The Mediterranean Strategy

[Sikander]

This Med strategy was a sure winner whenever it was used in games of Third Reich. The Brits are really in trouble once Gibralter falls, and that isn't all that hard of a nut to crack with the full range of German land and air forces basing from Spain and French North Africa. Once Gibralter is out of the way, the Brits can only communicate with the Pacific, Mediterranean and Indian ocean possessions the old fashioned way, around the Horn. This effectively doubles or triples the number of ships necessary to carry the same cargo.

[Ted Striker]

Third Reich board game

Wish there was a computer equivalent

[David Floyd]

Unfortunately, a campaign in Third Reich is much simpler than running the actual war. Spain wasn't going to join the war without major Axis victories, and major Axis victories would have greatly minimized the usefullness of the Spanish. The Germans needed Spain when the couldn't get them, and couldn't have gotten Spain when they didn't need them.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah but I think you are underestimating the importance of Egypt. Once the Suez Canal goes the Brits would be in deep shiite.

[David Floyd]

No doubt about it.

[Bereta_Eder]

Without Britain or without US what's the difference?

They did very little in WW2 anyway.

Now Russia and Greece OTOH kicked ass long and hard and while being in a disantvantage something that Britain/US never had.

They die to the last Australian was it?

[Bereta_Eder]

And Serbia. Big help from there as well. Croatia OTOH went nazi.

[David Floyd]

They did very little in WW2 anyway.

Now Russia and Greece OTOH kicked ass long and hard and while being in a disantvantage something that Britain/US never had.

If I wasn't positive you were trolling I'd have to rebut hard core.

[Ted Striker]

Now I have to go play the "Tobruk" map on Battlefield 1942

[Bereta_Eder]

A little trolling.
Anyway that's your show

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
This assumes two things. First, that the production difference in favor of the Soviets exceeds the "destruction of equipment" difference in favor of the Germans, and that Germany is occupying Great Britain. The first is quite unlikely, with the German Army on the defensive in its prime, and the second is quite impossible.

This assumes that the German army would actually be in defensive positions, but they wouldn't be if they were preparing for an attack, so that any breakthrough would yield large isolated pockets of troops and equipment.

Also, would the UK stay out of the war once the Germans go away? It's doubtful.

[David Floyd]

This assumes that the German army would actually be in defensive positions, but they wouldn't be if they were preparing for an attack, so that any breakthrough would yield large isolated pockets of troops and equipment.

True, but the German army was far more flexible throughout the war than the Red Army. And without the "purges of military necessity" - that is, rooting out the politically reliable nincompoops - the Red Army would be even worse off. I doubt someone like Budenny was competent to lead a division, much less an entire front.

Also, would the UK stay out of the war once the Germans go away? It's doubtful.

What do you mean?

[Ted Striker]

How many Germans do you think will post in this thread?

My guess: 0

[LoneWolf]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Without Britain or without US what's the difference?

They did very little in WW2 anyway.

Now Russia and Greece OTOH kicked ass long and hard and while being in a disantvantage something that Britain/US never had.

They die to the last Australian was it?

Well, it was their countries being invaded, after all.

[LoneWolf]

Ignoring Paki's irrelevencies, this is a very interesting thread.
The Med Strategy is the only one, aside from rolling the dice on an invasion of Britain, that offered the chance (I say chance) of German victory. There was no other such option. The invasion of Russia, without first securing the Southern flank, was bound to fail.