The military is always doing 'what ifs' war games and they ain't video games. During the Cold War all kinds of 'what ifs' were done if the Soviets attacked in Europe, for example. Military schools take old battles and refight them.
All-out aerial war between Germany and the Allies
- Thread starter Jenisch
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
The military is always doing 'what ifs' war games and they ain't video games. During the Cold War all kinds of 'what ifs' were done if the Soviets attacked in Europe, for example. Military schools take old battles and refight them.
GregP
Major
Makes sense to refight them from a military standpoint to see what went wrong.
Not from an historical one, unless you are into writing fiction ... which I enjoy. But I don't claim it would ever have happened that way ... it's just a good story, like an old war movie. Fun as entertainment, but not anything like real life.
Not from an historical one, unless you are into writing fiction ... which I enjoy. But I don't claim it would ever have happened that way ... it's just a good story, like an old war movie. Fun as entertainment, but not anything like real life.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Germany not only has the RAF to contend with, but the Royal Navy too, if they want to land on British soil (apart from the Channel Islands).
By mid 1941, the British and Canadians are commissioning Flower-class corvettes at a rate of better than six per month. The RN is taking on Hunt destroyer escorts at the rate of 2-3 per month and the River class start to enter service in early-ish 1942. Then youve got the 50 four stack destroyers donated by the US. By mid-1941 these have mostly been refitted and have entered service. There are also the war emergency programme destroyers, which are being produced at a rate of about 1.5 per month.
Given what the Kriegsmarine had in the way of surface craft and submarines in 1941 and 1942, that's a pretty tall obstacle to overcome.
Last edited:
You don't actually believe that Britain had a choice do you? You make it sound like Britain were the "bad guys". Come on now, you are smarter than that. Do you really think that Germany was forced into war by the British "war mongers".
If they were war mongers, what was Hitler and his goons?
Last edited:
GregP
Major
I love the word "goons." Don't see it used too often, but it certainly applies.
Of course not but the result of such a war game leads to a decision and a following action, here when adult people playing in a sandbox, the result moves nothing except you can boast in the pub that you had won the war if you had been in charge.
cimmex
- Thread starter
- #49
Perhaps. The British could have asked to the Füher where his sphere of interest lays. I think the Germans would like from the idea of a free hand to fight Russia. This also would likely put Japan against the Russians as well.
There's no such a thing. Politics is interests.
Germany wasn't forced. But neither the US was forced to Iraq. If the countries considerate that there's a treat to their interests or national security in some cases, they would declare war or they would finance coups against the adversary (the Americans and British have a tradition of this, BTW). This always happened and always will happen, and it's not only with the US and Britain. In the case of WWII, Britain and France didn't wanted a strong Germany in the way the Füher wanted to achive this (by force). Perhaps they also felt treatned by Germany, but I think it was much more because Germany was a treat their interestes. I think they were aware that a clash between Germany and the Soviets was likely, and they could have leave it to happen. But risk to have a German superpower was not the best thing to be done. A defeat of Russia in Germans hands also would improve considerably the position of Japan. If Japan managed to have the Soviet Far East as it's new colony, and managed to control China, again there would be a harm to the British (and American) interestes.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
How many people in this discussion have actually participated in military planning exericises. Its pretty obvious from the discussion so far, that the answer is "not many"
Historically the concept of accurate simulation of military situations is as old as the pyramids. Chess is even a crude form of military training. if nothing else it teaches the participants how to think clearly.
The modern forms of military simulation are based on the german system known as Kriegspiel
In 1811, Two young Prussian Princes, Fredrick and William, learnt of a wargame invented by Herr von Reisswitz who was living in Berlin. They were in intrigued by the idea and soon Reisswitz was given a room in the palace to build a large plaster contoured model of countryside at the arbitrary scale of 26 inches to the mile. The troops were represented by wooden blocks with coloured paper stuck on them. The games were regulated by a set of rules to decide the crucial matters such as movement and firing. Within a year, the king himself started to play the wargame.
The development of the game was then led by Von Reisswitz's son, who turned the rules for the game into something resembling a simulation of war. The playing area model was replaced with more practical maps at a scale of 8 inches to 1 mile. Dice were introduced to represent the element of chance in war. The two sides were labelled as 'Red' and 'Blue'; a naming convention that is still in wargaming.
In 1824, Reisswitz gave a lecture on the game to the general staff, followed by a demonstration. The Prussian Chief of Staff, General Muffling, received the game somewhat coldly at first, 'but as the operations expanded on the map, and move by move the combatants worked out their plans, the old general's face lit up, and at las he broke out with enthusiasm: 'It's not a game at all, it's training for war. I shall recommend it enthusiastically to the whole army'. (Quoted in Wilkinsin S.Essays on the Wargame, London, 1887). Professionally wargaming was then established.
The Prussian Army readily took to Kriegsspiel as a new training tool, but in Britain the army ignored the developments on the continent. What caught the British War Office attention was almost certainly the success of the Prussian military in the Franco Prussian War of 1870-71 and the published claim by some Prussian Officers that their wargames made an important contribution to their victory.
The British Official Rules for the Conduct of the Wargame were published in 1872. Initially, they were a reprinted of the 1824 Prussian game, hence were somewhat dated, but over the next twenty years the rules were updated by various British officers. Curiously enough, the most ardent enthusiasts for the rules were amongst the Volunteers (the part-time force raised to defend key points during the French invasion scare of 1859 onwards).
As the game became more competitive, the rules needed to be tighter and more rigid. The downside of this became apparent on the continent as tactical reality became submerged by the rule book. On occasions, the games produced results that defied military logic. In 1876, Verdy du Vernois, produced a new version of Kriegspiel, 'Beitrag zum Kriegsspiel'. This largely dispensed with the rules and the dice, instead relying on the sound military judgement of the umpire to arbitrate the actions in the wargame.
This 'free Kriegsspiel game' was translated by J.R.MacDonell in 1884 and published as 'The Tactical War game by General J. von Verdy du Vernoi' after first being published in serial form in the Volunteer Service Gazette.
Although described as a game without rules, guidance in the form of tables was found to be of great assistance to the umpires.
The War Office introduced a rules booklet to help umpires in such kriegspiel games and this is included in a book that I have, and which were also included in the instructions to the umpres.
Soon afterwards, the free Kriegsspiel concept took its next logical step and was being used to run strategic level wargames. The earliest example of such a British game I have found was the Defence of India war game, run at Simla (1903) by the Committee of Imperial Defence.
There has a continual upgrading of the system in the last century such that it bears virtually no resemblance now in professional staff assessments of military situations to the original 1824 model. However its impact on professional thinking has been enormous and has played major roles in some of the great campaigns in History. the Schlieffen Plan, the great offensives of 1918, Casse White and Yellow, Case Blue and the invasion of Russia (Barbarossa) are just a few plans that were developed and tested "on the sand table" . Sometimes the plans go horribly wrong, such as the Japanese Midway operation, which failed primarily because the Japanese did not know that the Americans were reading their signal traffic, and also because Japanese estimates of available US strength were wrong.
But it is no exaggerration to say that virtually every major operation since 1870 by western style military have at some stage been tested using Krigspiel techniques.
Today military plans and operations are tested mostly using computer modelling, but still based on the basic Krigspiel system. The system now exists in many different forms and for different purposes. The electronic versions are no video games in the sense of the home somputer games you guys might be thinking of. The computing power devoted to them enormous. The tactical warfare school for the RAN is based at South Head of Sydney at a base known as HMAS Watson. There is a 12 storey building there, but you wouldnt know it....it goes into the ground, not out of it. 8 of the 12 storeys are devoted to sheer computing power, the remaining 4 storeys contain comapartments simulating the operations rooms of various ships in the fleet, including (in my time) major units of the Soviet Pacific Fleet ). Configuration of the rooms could be changed to suit different ship and aircraft classes. The aircraft simulators were perhaps the most intersting....they included the most advanaced flights sims short of the real thing that money could buy. When I left the serbvice, money was being spent to enable our facility to be grafted onto the huge American resources, so that truly massive operations on a global scale could be tested and worked on.
The facility was developed for really a twofold purpose. For junior PWOs like me it was about simulating the performance of individual weapon systems and even to simulate the likley human responses and frailties of the crewman operating them. Keep your "computer crews" at their posts too long and they get tired and sloppy. At higher levels, the senior brass could use the facility to test operational plans and responses.
At the centre of the complex there was a referrees overwatch room that allowed the adjucators to to oversee operations and make decisions on issues like "oh your radar has been knocked out" and then switch it off on you.....very annoying.
During WWII there was not access to computers like we have, but they used human computers to oversee and assess the outcomes of a particular operation, but within the parameters of the system they were using. It was very rare for a referee to make a ruling that was outside the parameters of the rules. For the japanese and their Midway operation, the initial testing showed them losing all four of their fleet carriers. They made the mistake of altering the game parameters so much that the simulation became unrealistic. They got the reult they were looking for in the sim, but then lost the actual battle. they should not have messed with their original system....they should have altered their plan
Historically the concept of accurate simulation of military situations is as old as the pyramids. Chess is even a crude form of military training. if nothing else it teaches the participants how to think clearly.
The modern forms of military simulation are based on the german system known as Kriegspiel
In 1811, Two young Prussian Princes, Fredrick and William, learnt of a wargame invented by Herr von Reisswitz who was living in Berlin. They were in intrigued by the idea and soon Reisswitz was given a room in the palace to build a large plaster contoured model of countryside at the arbitrary scale of 26 inches to the mile. The troops were represented by wooden blocks with coloured paper stuck on them. The games were regulated by a set of rules to decide the crucial matters such as movement and firing. Within a year, the king himself started to play the wargame.
The development of the game was then led by Von Reisswitz's son, who turned the rules for the game into something resembling a simulation of war. The playing area model was replaced with more practical maps at a scale of 8 inches to 1 mile. Dice were introduced to represent the element of chance in war. The two sides were labelled as 'Red' and 'Blue'; a naming convention that is still in wargaming.
In 1824, Reisswitz gave a lecture on the game to the general staff, followed by a demonstration. The Prussian Chief of Staff, General Muffling, received the game somewhat coldly at first, 'but as the operations expanded on the map, and move by move the combatants worked out their plans, the old general's face lit up, and at las he broke out with enthusiasm: 'It's not a game at all, it's training for war. I shall recommend it enthusiastically to the whole army'. (Quoted in Wilkinsin S.Essays on the Wargame, London, 1887). Professionally wargaming was then established.
The Prussian Army readily took to Kriegsspiel as a new training tool, but in Britain the army ignored the developments on the continent. What caught the British War Office attention was almost certainly the success of the Prussian military in the Franco Prussian War of 1870-71 and the published claim by some Prussian Officers that their wargames made an important contribution to their victory.
The British Official Rules for the Conduct of the Wargame were published in 1872. Initially, they were a reprinted of the 1824 Prussian game, hence were somewhat dated, but over the next twenty years the rules were updated by various British officers. Curiously enough, the most ardent enthusiasts for the rules were amongst the Volunteers (the part-time force raised to defend key points during the French invasion scare of 1859 onwards).
As the game became more competitive, the rules needed to be tighter and more rigid. The downside of this became apparent on the continent as tactical reality became submerged by the rule book. On occasions, the games produced results that defied military logic. In 1876, Verdy du Vernois, produced a new version of Kriegspiel, 'Beitrag zum Kriegsspiel'. This largely dispensed with the rules and the dice, instead relying on the sound military judgement of the umpire to arbitrate the actions in the wargame.
This 'free Kriegsspiel game' was translated by J.R.MacDonell in 1884 and published as 'The Tactical War game by General J. von Verdy du Vernoi' after first being published in serial form in the Volunteer Service Gazette.
Although described as a game without rules, guidance in the form of tables was found to be of great assistance to the umpires.
The War Office introduced a rules booklet to help umpires in such kriegspiel games and this is included in a book that I have, and which were also included in the instructions to the umpres.
Soon afterwards, the free Kriegsspiel concept took its next logical step and was being used to run strategic level wargames. The earliest example of such a British game I have found was the Defence of India war game, run at Simla (1903) by the Committee of Imperial Defence.
There has a continual upgrading of the system in the last century such that it bears virtually no resemblance now in professional staff assessments of military situations to the original 1824 model. However its impact on professional thinking has been enormous and has played major roles in some of the great campaigns in History. the Schlieffen Plan, the great offensives of 1918, Casse White and Yellow, Case Blue and the invasion of Russia (Barbarossa) are just a few plans that were developed and tested "on the sand table" . Sometimes the plans go horribly wrong, such as the Japanese Midway operation, which failed primarily because the Japanese did not know that the Americans were reading their signal traffic, and also because Japanese estimates of available US strength were wrong.
But it is no exaggerration to say that virtually every major operation since 1870 by western style military have at some stage been tested using Krigspiel techniques.
Today military plans and operations are tested mostly using computer modelling, but still based on the basic Krigspiel system. The system now exists in many different forms and for different purposes. The electronic versions are no video games in the sense of the home somputer games you guys might be thinking of. The computing power devoted to them enormous. The tactical warfare school for the RAN is based at South Head of Sydney at a base known as HMAS Watson. There is a 12 storey building there, but you wouldnt know it....it goes into the ground, not out of it. 8 of the 12 storeys are devoted to sheer computing power, the remaining 4 storeys contain comapartments simulating the operations rooms of various ships in the fleet, including (in my time) major units of the Soviet Pacific Fleet ). Configuration of the rooms could be changed to suit different ship and aircraft classes. The aircraft simulators were perhaps the most intersting....they included the most advanaced flights sims short of the real thing that money could buy. When I left the serbvice, money was being spent to enable our facility to be grafted onto the huge American resources, so that truly massive operations on a global scale could be tested and worked on.
The facility was developed for really a twofold purpose. For junior PWOs like me it was about simulating the performance of individual weapon systems and even to simulate the likley human responses and frailties of the crewman operating them. Keep your "computer crews" at their posts too long and they get tired and sloppy. At higher levels, the senior brass could use the facility to test operational plans and responses.
At the centre of the complex there was a referrees overwatch room that allowed the adjucators to to oversee operations and make decisions on issues like "oh your radar has been knocked out" and then switch it off on you.....very annoying.
During WWII there was not access to computers like we have, but they used human computers to oversee and assess the outcomes of a particular operation, but within the parameters of the system they were using. It was very rare for a referee to make a ruling that was outside the parameters of the rules. For the japanese and their Midway operation, the initial testing showed them losing all four of their fleet carriers. They made the mistake of altering the game parameters so much that the simulation became unrealistic. They got the reult they were looking for in the sim, but then lost the actual battle. they should not have messed with their original system....they should have altered their plan
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #51
From the German perpective, I'm actually not so certain that it would be a good idea to reach a deal with the West, since the West could have broke it while Germany was busy in Russia. A German planned three to four months campaign against Russia in 1940, would present the Allies with an adequated opportunity to stab Germany in the back, specially if Germany managed to destroy the Soviet state. If the Russians resisted like historically, then better.
Last edited:
Your missing the point. Dave has a habit of portraying Hitler as the one forced into war by the "war mongering" British. That the British should have kept appeasing Hitler and letting him take Europe without a fight.
That is a flawed view of history.
- Thread starter
- #54
The idea of a Communist treat to the Axis, like their simpatizers say, simply didn't existed or could be well countered. The Axis already had a pact against the Soviet Union. The German Army could built a very strong force to hold a Soviet invasion, while Japan also had such a force. If Japan didn't invade China, God, they could have mustered a tremendous fighting force in Manchuria against a Soviet invasion. If a Soviet treat indeed existed, it also would be of the interest of Europe and the US to counter it.
I don't want to make the Axis as the sole "bad guys" in history, but the fact is that the wars that happened between 1937 and 1945 could have been avoided. Perhaps they could have been partially avoided if the Allies allowed Hitler to try conquer an Empire in Eastern Europe, but they definately could have been avoided by the Axis themselfs if not their expansionist wishes.
Last edited:
And Poland and the rest if Eastern Europe were colatteral damage?
In the end they were, Communist collatoral damage.
- Thread starter
- #57
Personally, I do not doubt that the Allies would be able to make the the Red Army get out of Poland in a scenario where France survives. Germany would be doomed under this reality. The Allies would arrive in the part of Poland under Nazi rule perhaps by 1943-44, and they would have big contingents (the French Air Force would probably be awesome by this time, BTW), and it seems to me that Russians would not be much willing to fight the Anglo-French. And if the Americans treatned Russia, it would be even better. It would not compensate for the USSR to fight just for their part of Poland. The Russians were acting as oportunists, they wanted to profit with the war, and they would already have profited by the trade with Germany and by watching the capitalist powers fight each other.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
This somewhat misses the point. Britain went to war as a result of the germans disregardng the security gurantees that had been given to Poland. Poland had been given these gurantees because Hiteler had been exposed as someone who could not be trusted after all the broken promises and lies that he had made. The Russians in prewar Europe were always seen as trouble, but not a mortal enemy because the British assessment of them was that they could not harm British interests, whereas the Germans were seen as far more dangerous.
Once the Germans attacked Poland, there wasnt any going back. Cpountries cant just flit around the world stage with some grandiose scheme of letting the Germans have a free go at the Russians and letting us go. To get at the Russians, the Germans had to smash the Poles, and that was unnacceptable to Britain. There is no way that the Germans can attack the Russians and not upset people, even if the USSR was a pariah state that nobody cared for.
Once the Germans attacked Poland, there wasnt any going back. Cpountries cant just flit around the world stage with some grandiose scheme of letting the Germans have a free go at the Russians and letting us go. To get at the Russians, the Germans had to smash the Poles, and that was unnacceptable to Britain. There is no way that the Germans can attack the Russians and not upset people, even if the USSR was a pariah state that nobody cared for.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I have been reading the 2 volume set of "The Last Lion" by William Manchester about the life of Churchill. This almost happened in the mid-30s with Goering and such but never came to be. As far as the term 'British warmongers', you need to brush up on British history in the 1930s. There was nothing but a bunch of peace activists and nay-sayers about the world view from Germany - except Churchill who was provided with info secretly from those concerned in Germany and elsewhere. But he was banished from political influence during this time. He was the ONLY British 'war-monger' around for much of the 1930s.
- Thread starter
- #60
A Fatal Guarantee: Poland, 1939 | History Today
This article is very interesting, I recommend to everyone read the full content.
- Status
