Debate continues (see Morris vs. JoeRock AAR)

[kaigab73]

2.0 games

[Peter Stauffenberg]

If your experience is with GS v2.0 then I think you need to try Sealion again with the latest v2.1. It's a significant change from v2.0 so your conclusion might be different after seeing the changes.

[Morris]

Generally , NA is a poison , even if you control Suez ,the cost of pp & fuel & time are too expensive for the Axis . It will sure effect the Babarosa's schadule . If Babarosa delay (including 1942 Babarosa ) , Axis will have to hand over war initiative earlier .
Regarding to sealion , It is a gamble ,but usually you will have to face a powerful USSR in the east . If you win the gamble ,the Max mode would be the best result which Axis can imagine . But you must play Axis as well as Supermax .

[teamgene]

Actually, Roosevelt already met with the military about how soon it would be possible to invade europe while France was falling. He was told it would not be possible until the summer of 44, which appears to be a pretty good estimate.

[rkr1958]

Actually, Roosevelt already met with the military about how soon it would be possible to invade europe while France was falling. He was told it would not be possible until the summer of 44, which appears to be a pretty good estimate.

Europe was actually invaded in '43 (i.e., mainland Italy). It was the invasion of France, Overlord, that was is 1944. My understanding was that the US wanted to invade, or try to invade, France in 1942; but that it was Churchill who wanted to take the safer route of North Africa followed by Italy. I do think a 1942 attempted invasion of France would have been a disaster. 1943 might have been a different story. One thing for sure is that the US needed some combat experience as demonstrated by their first meeting with the Germans at Kasserine pass.

[Cybvep]

The US Army was definitely not ready for a large scale invasion in Europe in 1942. Even Overlord was risky and it was in 1944, not in 1942, when Germany was much stronger and the SU and the USA UK were weaker.

[BuddyGrant]

My understanding was that the US wanted to invade, or try to invade, France in 1942; but that it was Churchill who wanted to take the safer route of North Africa followed by Italy.

The US did not care about North Africa & the Middle East when they went to war at the end of 1941. They had no interests there and preferred going directly for a cross channel invasion of France first as you mention (they initially preferred a "Japan First" strategy, but Churchill changed their minds about that, due to Britain's precarious situation). For Britain the Med and North Africa was vital though, especially the Suez canal and it's lifeline to colonies in India and Asia. Even the Americans would not have gone for a 1942 France invasion though, as forces and supplies could not be built up until at least 1943 according to Roosevelt's military planners.

Side-note: It's interesting how our modern eyes look at the value of Middle East oil and incorporate that into WW2 game designs, when at the time this was not the vital target for Axis or Allied efforts in the region.

I do think a 1942 attempted invasion of France would have been a disaster.

It was when the Brits tried it on a small scale in August 1942. The Dieppe raid was an absolute disaster & had a large impact on Allied invasion planning/thinking for 1944.

1943 might have been a different story. One thing for sure is that the US needed some combat experience as demonstrated by their first meeting with the Germans at Kasserine pass.

For sure. If the Brits would have skipped the Soft Underbelly approach and agreed to a 1943 D-Day invasion with the US, then I suspect a 1943 D-Day might have been as disastrous as Kasserine pass. The Americans learned a lot from their time in North Africa, and I think it's a fair argument that this 'sideshow' Med campaign was ultimately very useful, even absolutely vital, for the Allies. The Russians may not have agreed of course - they thought the Allies were purposely stalling in the West, waiting for the Germans to destroy them!

Side-note #2: It's too bad that the Axis/Allied politics can't be a part of the game. The arguments for each countries position made the war much more difficult for the Allies, but German-Italian disagreements were also challenging for the Axis side, especially early in the war.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

How could the British naval traffic through the Suez between England and the Far East manage to survive sailing through the Ionian Sea? Axis naval and air units could bombard these ships from Libya, Sicily and Sardinia. Italian subs would be particularly dangerous.

Weren't transport of raw materials from England diverted around the Cape of Good Hope until the Allies go naval and air superiority in the Mediterranean ala 1943?

So was Churchill's interest in getting the US involved in North Africa to be able to resume using the Suez canal again for transport to England? If I recall correctly sailing through the Suez saved many days on a trip of e. g. India to England.

[Diplomaticus]

I, too, am very curious about this. In game terms, Suez is nice to have, but hardly critical for either side. Sealing off the Med effectively requires control of Gibraltar, which is an entirely different matter.

So... can somebody explain in more detail exactly why Suez was so bloody important?

[Morris]

I, too, am very curious about this. In game terms, Suez is nice to have, but hardly critical for either side. Sealing off the Med effectively requires control of Gibraltar, which is an entirely different matter.

So... can somebody explain in more detail exactly why Suez was so bloody important?

For Politics & Media ! Not military very much .

[BuddyGrant]

How could the British naval traffic through the Suez between England and the Far East manage to survive sailing through the Ionian Sea? Axis naval and air units could bombard these ships from Libya, Sicily and Sardinia. Italian subs would be particularly dangerous.

My impression is that the real life Italian Navy was much less of a threat than their small counterpart in CEAW:). After Taranto in 1940 & Cape Matapan in 1941 I don't think the Italian surface fleet actually ventured away from port very often. Their subs fared better, but I'm not sure there were ever enough of them considering they were also parceled out for use in the Battle of the Atlantic. I've seen figures of 172 total Italian subs built in WW2 (versus 1,168 German subs), of which 120 were lost during the war - 40 in the Atlantic. Based on those losses you would think at least 1/3 of the Italian subs were in the Atlantic during crucial periods of the war, maybe even a higher percentage since the Med would have likely been a more dangerous place for a sub to patrol.

In the Med air war many Italian bombers had short range and were therefore unsuitable for anti-shipping tasks, and in general the production of Italian fighting units was very low anyway throughout the war, so I believe most of the anti-shipping air war was tasked to German aircraft. There were never enough of those either though, as anyone who has played CEAW could easily understand. The shortages of bombers would have became much worse after set backs in Russia forced the Germans to re-locate many of these bombers to the eastern front for supply tasks.

But never mind the focus on bombarding Allied Med shipping, the Axis could not even consistently protect their own supply ships over much shorter distances than the Brits ever had to travel! I really think Rommel would have had a good chance to reach the Suez if their shipping had not been so decimated by the British Navy.

Weren't transport of raw materials from England diverted around the Cape of Good Hope until the Allies go naval and air superiority in the Mediterranean ala 1943?

I don't believe the Allies ever lost Med naval superiority in WW2, and the relatively small amount of Axis anti-shipping aircraft in the region was just not enough to dramatically shift Allied shipping strategy. That's been my understanding anyway, though I'd welcome debate on this interesting topic.

So was Churchill's interest in getting the US involved in North Africa to be able to resume using the Suez canal again for transport to England? If I recall correctly sailing through the Suez saved many days on a trip of e. g. India to England.

Check out the image below (the red line from Britain to her colonies) to get an idea of how significant the cost/time savings for using the Suez Canal were. Not only a saving in time & money, but the Cape of Good Hope seas were extremely volatile for WW2 era ships. The risk of running into Axis anti-shipping in the Med was greater, but the Cape of Good Hope route would have also meant more U-boat risks than the Suez route.

[rkr1958]

@BuddyGrant

Very nice picture! That really gets the point across why the route through the Med and the Suez Canal were so important. Also, a very good point about the dangers sailing around the horn of Africa both from the seas and from German u-boats.

The Italian naval philosophy during WW-II was a "fleet in being". This is basically the same philosophy the Germans went by in WW-I. Here's a very good description of the raid on Taranto, which was called Operation Judgement. The reference is actually a post in a forum; but it's book quality and very detailed.

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/s ... php?t=9409

[Cybvep]

Suez was and still is important. It's very strategic - it both allows to cut travel cost and time significantly and is a sort of gateway to Asia. Since the hardest part of convoy raiding was actually FINDING convoys, the longer route around Africa wasn't really safer, because the convoys were longer at sea and they had to cross the Atlantic, anyway. Moreover, escorts had to be provided most of the time, since it was never sure WHEN and WHERE the Axis subs would attack. The Japanese made a daring raid in the Indian Ocean in 1942 and various submarines and auxiliary cruisers were threatening the supply lines there (check also this link - http://www.uboat.net/ops/monsun.htm). Even if the threat was minimal, escorts had to be provided.

However, it is untrue that the Axis were not a threat to Allied shipping in the Med - just check the fierce naval-air battles for convoys going to Malta. In CEAW this convoy is not represented, but IRL it was the centre of attention of both sides for quite a while.

[Diplomaticus]

Thank you forum historians!

In light of these posts (see above) I would argue that at some future date (obviously not for 2.1) we consider raising the stakes for taking/losing Suez. In Third Reich, there was a hefty 1-time production loss inflicted on Britain for loss of Suez. That's a pretty crude way to handle it, but it shows that the designers of 3R considered Egypt to be a more important strategic target than its cities & production represented.

Maybe the easiest way to handle it is imposing a penalty on the southern convoy. We already have a precedent in that there's a convoy penalty for insufficient escorts in the Atlantic. Maybe something along those lines?

[Clark]

Suez was and still is important. It's very strategic - it both allows to cut travel cost and time significantly and is a sort of gateway to Asia. Since the hardest part of convoy raiding was actually FINDING convoys, the longer route around Africa wasn't really safer, because the convoys were longer at sea and they had to cross the Atlantic, anyway. Moreover, escorts had to be provided most of the time, since it was never sure WHEN and WHERE the Axis subs would attack. The Japanese made a daring raid in the Indian Ocean in 1942 and various submarines and auxiliary cruisers were threatening the supply lines there (check also this link - http://www.uboat.net/ops/monsun.htm). Even if the threat was minimal, escorts had to be provided.

However, it is untrue that the Axis were not a threat to Allied shipping in the Med - just check the fierce naval-air battles for convoys going to Malta. In CEAW this convoy is not represented, but IRL it was the centre of attention of both sides for quite a while.

Right, but the convoys going to Malta weren't necessarily ships laden with supplies for Britain. They were resupplying the island with supplies needed to continue the threat to the Axis supply lines between Italy and North Africa.

One way to simulate the effect of the Mediterranean shipping lanes for the British would be to add a decent sized convoy coming from the Suez every few turns and traveling through the Med. If the Axis so chose, Italian and German sea and air forces could be deployed to the Med to take pot shots along the way, forcing the Allies to protect the convoy in the Med and Atlantic. If the Axis took the Suez, the convoy would appear less frequently and smaller in size (due to the greater distance and treacherous waters) in the Atlantic.

...FWIW, I know that suggestion would probably take quite a bit of work and throw the game balance way out of whack. An easier way would be to dock PPs from the British as long as they did not hold the Suez.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The problem with the latter is that the AI is rather stupid when it comes to move the convoy out og the Med towards Britain. It doesn't know the way out is through Gibraltar. This is certainly something Ronnie can toy with in is possible future AI update.

[teamgene]

Right after Crete I don't believe the Allies had Naval Superiority or rather didn't use their superiority, the British got their nose bloodied and learned what they should have learned in Norway, that air power can trump naval power without air protection.

As went Malta so went North Africa. When Malta was under heavy attack axis convoys got through. When it wasn't they generally didn't. Italians were smart enough to figure out that the german code was possibly broken. The Italian 'book' code however, never was broken.

Suez falls and german uboats are camped off the coast of India. Brits needed the manpower and the resources from the east.

[kaigab73]

Losing Suez shoud have a larger impact on UK. Either making Spain join Axis, or UK losing PP (UK has always made lot of money by fee for any ship travelling thorugh Suez and this also during the war so that Axis has an interest to take Suez and UK to defend it). maybe make Suez a 7PP city (moving PP from other cities in UK) so who owns the city gain some advantage.

[Cybvep]

The Axis shouldn't gain that much just from owning Suez, but the UK should definitely lose a lot. I think that the best way of representing this would be to reduce the size of British convoys when Suez is conquered by the Axis.