WWII: What should my RPG setting be?

[Thunderfoot]

But they did - see here: Battles of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- and Zhukov totally trashed the Japanese 6th army. It was this defeat that persuaded the Japanese high command to focus on Pacific expansion rather than fighting a land war in Asia.

Okay, let me clarify. Actually put real forces on the ground and attack the Soviets. The problem was that Col Azuma, much like Gen McClellan in the Civil War was an absolute useless moron in battle. He was afraid to commit troops to the best of their abilities or worse, was tactically blind to the short comings of his strategies. Bad luck can strike any army in war, ignorance however cannot be avoided. Taking the "recon force" leading his attack was like sending a formal telegraph to the Soviets that , hey, we're attacking from here and have no other way to get to you.

And instead of submitting a plan of action and start increasing troop build up before hand, then had to wait on troops while the Soviets did the same. And then, limited his attacks to a single motif. Last I checked, the Mongolian border with Russia is rather extensive and focusing your forces in one area in the eastern part where there are few water crossings and all of which are surrounded by mountains just isn't that smart. If the Japanese Army would have removed westward and moved overland through what is now Khazakstan into Novosibirsk, not only would have they put a vice grip on the Soviet land but cut them off from their vital oil fields. The problem was they were so intent on the American initiative that they were blinded by the other opportunities. Then the Germans put a stop to the whole thing by signing thing August peace treaty.

I agree, killing Zhukov would not only have made a huge difference, here, but also later. Frankly the whole Japanese-Sino theater was nothing more than a series of missed opportunities.

 

[S'mon]

I don't believe that's true, in general. Had they invaded as a liberating, anti-Bolshevik army, I think it could have been possible. But then, that was pretty much beyond the imagination of the Nazis.

There were suggestions that a short term capitulation might have been possible, though the Soviets almost certainly would have used that to recover enough to strike back.

A limited campaign aimed at liberating the Ukraine etc could have garnered local support and not given the Soviets the propaganda value that the actual war-of-extermination did, but as you say they wouldn't have been the Nazis if they could think like that. Even then, Soviet manufacturing capacity was much higher and their designs were more efficient too. One reason the German General Staff initiated World War One in 1914 was a belief that within 20 years Russia would be too powerful to fight, so they had to strike now. They were right.

 

[S'mon]

Part of the problem for the Axis was that the USA & USSR are both ridiculously blessed with raw materials...and had large population bases.

That meant that they could churn out gear and soldiers to use it at a rate they simply could not compete with. By fighting both simultaneously, they sealed their fate.

Germany, in contrast, had to deal with material and manpower shortages of all kinds. One reason the Hindenburg went out like it did is that they had to use a more flammable lifting gas than other nations...because that was all they could get.

Yes, I agree - both had manpower advantages over Germany, but the huge advantage in raw materials was much more important. AIR in 1942 the USA had 140 million people to Japan's 110 million, but that does not reflect the actual balance of power between a partially industrialised resource-poor island and a fully industrialised resource-rich continent. Furthermore US industry had perfected assembly-line mass production techniques a few years previously; the USSR and Britain had too to a lesser extent, moreso than Germany or (AFAIK) Japan - although Japan's raw materials shortage was soon so critical that arguably production efficiency barely mattered.

Germany had personnel* and training advantages in the Wehrmacht and German SS; and development of Blitzkrieg tactics gave a big tactical advantage early in the war. This gave Germany an initial advantage over traditional 'peer competitors' France and Britain, but it was a huge mistake to think that it made Germany invincible.

*I've seen a bunch of number-crunching from a postwar US military source on combat performance which seemed to demonstrate pretty conclusively that German superiority was genuine, not a myth. But it was superiority in the sense of a 10-15% advantage - ie in an equal match 100 German soldiers were worth 110-115 American (or British, or Russian, AIR) soldiers. Which is not such a big deal if you're outnumbered 2-3 to 1.

 

[S'mon]

I agree, killing Zhukov would not only have made a huge difference, here, but also later. Frankly the whole Japanese-Sino theater was nothing more than a series of missed opportunities.

I think Zhukov was probably the most brilliant general of the war. Like US Grant in the American Civil War he was able to recognise the strengths of his forces and exploit them to the fullest.

I think Eisenhower's managerial brilliance should not be understated, but the main effect of that was to win the war for the Western Allies with far fewer losses than would otherwise have been the case. A lot of people descended from WW2 veterans (such as my wife) can probably thank Eisenhower for their existence today. A lot of sons came home because of him. OTOH removing him would not win the war for the Axis, it would just protract it and cause more death and destruction on both sides.

 

[Silver Moon]

I think Eisenhower's managerial brilliance should not be understated, but the main effect of that was to win the war for the Western Allies with far fewer losses than would otherwise have been the case. A lot of people descended from WW2 veterans (such as my wife) can probably thank Eisenhower for their existence today. A lot of sons came home because of him. OTOH removing him would not win the war for the Axis, it would just protract it and cause more death and destruction on both sides.

Absolutely true. And the creation of the Interstate Highway System during his presidency shouldn't be underestimated as critical infrastructure for the United States economic success in the half-century+ that has followed it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Germany had personnel* and training advantages in the Wehrmacht and German SS; and development of Blitzkrieg tactics gave a big tactical advantage early in the war. This gave Germany an initial advantage over traditional 'peer competitors' France and Britain, but it was a huge mistake to think that it made Germany invincible.

Let's not forget Axis tech: many of the German tank and German & Japanese airplane designs were phenomenally good- better than most of what the Allies fielded- that it was only the superior numbers of man & materiel the Allies could throw at the problem that won certain key battles. I mean, we really didn't have anything to compete with the best of the German panzers in firepower & armor for most of the war, and thank God it ended before the Nazis could make an significant number of jet aircraft.

 

[billd91]

I think Zhukov was probably the most brilliant general of the war. Like US Grant in the American Civil War he was able to recognise the strengths of his forces and exploit them to the fullest.

He was certainly effective, but he was also a blunt instrument. Like with Stalin, recognizing that quantity has a quality all its own isn't particularly brilliant. I would give the brilliance nod to several of his opponents. And even among the Soviets, I'm more impressed by both Vasily Chuikov and Konstantin Rokossovsky, both of whom, I think, showed better understanding of subtlety and tactics.

 

[Thunderfoot]

He was certainly effective, but he was also a blunt instrument. Like with Stalin, recognizing that quantity has a quality all its own isn't particularly brilliant. I would give the brilliance nod to several of his opponents. And even among the Soviets, I'm more impressed by both Vasily Chuikov and Konstantin Rokossovsky, both of whom, I think, showed better understanding of subtlety and tactics.

But subtlety in tactics only goes so far. The fact is, pre-WWII the Soviets were the only army that had real battle experience, of course, most of it was because they were cleaning up the October surprise, but regardless, they had officers that were not only loyal, but had some amount of training. The Germans, sent their men into Spain to get their training and while their air forces certainly became the best of the best, their ground forces just kind of puffed up their abilities.
Let's face it, until the Germans began fighting the Soviets and the British, and later the Americans, they were just running roughshod over inferior troops. The Poles, the Slovaks, the French, the Dutch, not exactly the creme'de'la'creme of military forces in the WWII time frame. Not that the German army was anything to sneeze at, but once they started fighting troops that had the material, the numbers and the leadership to give them a fight, it went from lighting war to lightly gaining war to "why are we moving in the opposite direction?"
Zhukov understood that superior numbers is sometimes your only advantage, and he knew when to use them. Yes there are times when strategy will defeat numbers but in all the cases of Soviet major victory it was numbers and logistics, not strategy. Leningrad, Stalingrad all battles of attrition, only the battle of Kursk do we see true Soviet innovation in tactics, great defensive positions, solid intelligence, positive logistics, and superior weapons (anti-tank vs tank).

 

[Chairman7w]

Let's not overlook the fact that the American GI was just a better soldier. Smarter, a better shot, more resourceful and braver.

(Chairman crawls in, pulls the pin with his teeth, and tosses the grenade over!)

 

[Chairman7w]

Sounds like a very cool module, and certainly a fun game.

My question (not having seen the module), is: "If these Aliens are so smart to have been able to conduct Space Travel and reach Earth, why would they care about our affairs here, and want to intervene? And if so - why secretly?

Not poking holes or coming down on anybody - I have a genuine curiosity, cause I think I would like to run something similar. Why are they doing this?

Doing a "Timemaster" game using the "Partisans in the Shadows" module, set in German occupied France in 1941. The PC's are time-hopping commandos (timecops) set to put things back on track from aliens trying to make changes for Germany to win WWII. The prepackaged module is pretty good 'covert team/trust no one' scenario, which works well for a "Part I", but I would like to then flow into a more action-packed scenario for the commandos to finish up wth. As time-hopping is involved it could be at any point between 1941 and 1945, just so the villains are the Nazis. Any thoughts?