HWW Revamp

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • cl0xy wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      There should be more tanks for the Soviet Union. Much more. Soviets had at least 11k tanks at the beginning of operation barberossa. While, Germans only had around 3k tanks. Meanwhile, the Italian navy wasn't outdated it was in fact advanced and modern. It was only bad because the lack of sufficient oil and resources. I agree that Japan needs a larger navy and more planes. It needs more medium levels naval bombers and level 2 or 3 carriers.
      The invasion of russia happened in 1941 - 1942 but the game starts in 1939 but ok
      In 1939 the Soviet Army was still formidable and large. It had still had much more tanks. Although, the Germans had better leadership and quality.
    • no offence but everything you critiziced i disagree with. Maybe read more history first
      “I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”

      “If you win, you need not explain!”

      “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”

      War is Peace
      Slavery is Freedom
      Weakness is Strength
    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      cl0xy wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      There should be more tanks for the Soviet Union. Much more. Soviets had at least 11k tanks at the beginning of operation barberossa. While, Germans only had around 3k tanks. Meanwhile, the Italian navy wasn't outdated it was in fact advanced and modern. It was only bad because the lack of sufficient oil and resources. I agree that Japan needs a larger navy and more planes. It needs more medium levels naval bombers and level 2 or 3 carriers.
      The invasion of russia happened in 1941 - 1942 but the game starts in 1939 but ok
      In 1939 the Soviet Army was still formidable and large. It had still had much more tanks. Although, the Germans had better leadership and quality.
      and most of Soviet tanks in the 1940s were broken and not combat-ready, sure the Soviets had a bunch of tanks, but most of them were not once again... combat ready, they were so broken, most of them were destroyed, in one engagement in war, also they couldn’t get the materials to fix the tanks.
    • Naval landings by themselves are a huge logistical challenge, Naval power and air superiority is a requirement and the Identification of suitable targets is a must for A decisive Advantage.
      The premier naval powers USA and UK took years to prepare for the Normandy landings. Operation Sealion couldnt be accomplished by the germans as they didnt have the naval superiority, Air superiority, experience and technical knowledge for such an operation.
      Besides the leader had already commited troops for Case Blue (drafted in 1940?).

      whowh wrote:

      I would say that battle was a draw. The USSR and Mongolia outnumbered the Japanese 3:1 and had 30% more casualties.
      even though The battle ended With a more Soviet Casualties it is a Soviet victory as Japanese Military matters took a drastic change of policy and Decided to end aggression with the Soviets and Change courses for a southern expansion.
      Case Blue had specifically stated Japan to not invade and keep them in the dark if possible so that the Japanese adopt the southern expansion policy and be able to supply its war machine.
      Besides Japanese Diplomatic policy against USSR faltered after Germany Itself allied with USSR.
      "In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass

      "The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply"

      Secretary of Nova0213
    • Karl von Krass wrote:

      Naval landings by themselves are a huge logistical challenge, Naval power and air superiority is a requirement and the Identification of suitable targets is a must for A decisive Advantage.
      The premier naval powers USA and UK took years to prepare for the Normandy landings. Operation Sealion couldnt be accomplished by the germans as they didnt have the naval superiority, Air superiority, experience and technical knowledge for such an operation.
      Besides the leader had already commited troops for Case Blue (drafted in 1940?).

      whowh wrote:

      I would say that battle was a draw. The USSR and Mongolia outnumbered the Japanese 3:1 and had 30% more casualties.
      even though The battle ended With a more Soviet Casualties it is a Soviet victory as Japanese Military matters took a drastic change of policy and Decided to end aggression with the Soviets and Change courses for a southern expansion.Case Blue had specifically stated Japan to not invade and keep them in the dark if possible so that the Japanese adopt the southern expansion policy and be able to supply its war machine.
      Besides Japanese Diplomatic policy against USSR faltered after Germany Itself allied with USSR.
      The Japanese lacked the forces to defeat the Soviets in open battle. The Japanese tanks were terrible, in fact some would argue that even Italian tanks were better. The best Japanese tank was only able to be compared to a Sherman tank. Even worse the Soviet Union had more and their tanks were more powerful. Consisting of more medium tanks. Meanwhile, the Japanese had mainly light tanks that had paper thin armor. Just look at the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Although, it was an expected victory, the Japanese were incredibly surprised by the speed and strength of the Soviet Union, the invasion only lasted for a little more than one week. The Kwuangtang army was also a pretty strong Japanese army. Coupled with collaborators there were over one million men. The Japanese expected that they would at least resist for at least one month. If the Japanese had continued they would might have fared worse than Italy.
    • no whowh i meant the stuff people said my thread
      Was wrong
      About
      “I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”

      “If you win, you need not explain!”

      “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”

      War is Peace
      Slavery is Freedom
      Weakness is Strength
    • Karl von Krass wrote:

      Naval power and air superiority is a requirement
      cough grandempire cough

      Karl von Krass wrote:

      The battle ended With a more Soviet Casualties it is a Soviet victory
      Strategically yes.

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      some would argue that even Italian tanks were better.
      Talk about an insult.
    • whowh wrote:

      Karl von Krass wrote:

      Naval power and air superiority is a requirement
      cough grandempire cough

      Karl von Krass wrote:

      The battle ended With a more Soviet Casualties it is a Soviet victory
      Strategically yes.

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      some would argue that even Italian tanks were better.
      Talk about an insult.
      No I'm serious Italians actually had good designs, but they were unable to implement it due to the lack of industry.