D_I_P_Scout

This is well said and hits directly to main strategic failing of Germany. The occupation of France and the low countries gave Germany nothing that it truly needed. A negotiated peace with France (Giving back territory), evacuation of German troops across the Rhine with signed peace treaties with France and Britain would have prevented the U.S.A. from declaring war on Hitler as well. This would have allowed Germany to fine tune its economy, stockpile resources, and train up troops for an all out drive into Russia, (Still not a great idea), and the war would have been a slogging nasty battle of attrition to be sure. However, with all resources focused that direction Germany could realistically take Russia west of the Urals at least. I am not sure how long or if they could hold and even consolidate their gains and hold on the country, but that is another discussion in and of itself.

Most blowout losses I have suffered are caused by just a few major issues the seem to be recurring themes: 1 or 2 teammates who over extend (YOLO RANGER) early in the game, die needlessly and give the red team and early advantage DD's that rush a cap with no support (or approach with caution and are left with no support) and then you are 1 or 2 DD's down right away. NO coordination at all and the team splits at match start as every team member chases their own agenda. Enemy team picks them off one-by-one. The team takes one cap on a flank and the entire team decides to pretty much camp that cap for the rest of the game and any team member that attempts to be productive is left to die alone.

The capabilities of S-400 system and China's ballistic missiles that can track and target a moving carrier at sea are just some of the examples of the changing nature of modern warfare by 1st tier nations. Carriers are still viable force projection tools; however, they are now going to be severely hampered by area denial systems. China is also developing their own stealthy weapons platforms as well. China's strategy is to deny the U.S. freedom of the seas in their theatres of operation and their systems are very capable of accomplishing this. China cannot at present threaten U.S. naval supremacy on BLUE water ocean. They can prevent the U.S. Navy from operating freely within close proximity of their shores. We do not have the upper hand technologically speaking to a degree that would give the U.S. free and unfettered air supremacy in any theatre against another 1st world power. It does always amaze me at how many people are quick to dismiss the weapons development in other countries as insignificant. If the U.S. and China ever move to open warfare it would not be a land war. Neither side would have the logistical ability to operate a large land army on the shores of the other for an extended period of time, and little for either side to gain by taking and holding enemy territory. The war would be an engagement between naval forces, air forces, space assets, and through the use of unlimited cyber warfare. I doubt we would see U.S. troops on Chinese soil, or Chinese troops on U.S. soil. The U.S. needs to focus on getting our D.O.D. and military assets hardened against cyber attacks and we need to address the vulnerabilities of our vital infrastructure ASAP. This is an area of significant weakness. We need to focus on advanced drone development, and assets to project these forces into enemy territory. We should invest in advanced energy weapons and new missiles and delivery platforms. Enhance our ability to destroy enemy space assets. We need to revitalize our A.S.W abilities as many modern nations have developed new and advanced submarines. We need to take a strong look at where we spend our defense dollars because to continue building huge and insanely expensive CV's when we need to develop to areas listed above may not be in our best interest.

Thanks for the information. I do appreciate it.

Is it possible to have a hypersonic platform made with a low radar cross-section or made with, "Stealth" materials? To my knowledge the SR-71 was fast and low observable. I just assumed this is something that we might be able to accomplish even with hypersonic. I just bring this up because it would be hard to counter something moving that fast and difficult to lock onto due to stealthy build. I do not know, Like I said I am far from being an expert on the subject. The sheer destructive force and small size of an anti matter warhead with no fallout would make it a perfect tactical weapon albeit purely sci-fi at this juncture. It I had to choose I think I would opt for the hypersonic speed at this point. A target flying at high Mach speeds would a difficult to defend against and just a near hit with a warhead of this style would normally suffice for a non-hardened target.

Exactly, I didn't think the game was horrible right after the release it just taught me to play a bit less aggressive in my DD's. It was tough as hell getting nuked by attack aircraft; however, this was a problem if I over extended and ran to a cap with out back up. I think they neutered the CV's too much at this point. I do not play CV's, but I always enjoyed having them in the game.

I do not think current tech tree Russian ships are all that OP. Russian DD's and Cruisers for the most part have some excellent aspects but seem to pay a steep price for them. Khaba is hardly the best T10 anymore. Tier 9 Russian DD's are not prize winners either. Neutrashimmy I am not sure about. I have faced one and it didn't live long in the battle as it got spotted by a Wooster who knew how to shoot. It does appear there are a few Russian BB's that are just a bit OP. This is generally the case with each line that is released you get one two that just Kick butt and are a bit OP, most will be in the mix with the rest of the nations, and there will be one that is the stinker of the lot. I am going to hold my judgment until they are released. Will I play them? Heck yeah. I meddle with every line released to find the keepers for my collection and sell the rest. The bottom line for me is, "Do I have fun when I play it?" if the answer is YES then I keep it despite what other people say about it. Everyone told me the Wichita sucks, and maybe it does, but when I play it I have a lot of fun sneaking in and ambushing people with 8 inch guns.

There were a lot of strategic mistakes made by all sides leading up to WWII and during the war as well. What if's aside. The only way for the AXIS powers to achieve any of their goals and keep them long term would have required a limited war. If Germany had just halted hostilities after the defeat of France and consolidated power and built up economically and technologically for about 10 years things would have been different. Germany might have pulled off a negotiated settlement by offering some concessions in exchange for a peace treaty with the Western powers before focusing attention on Russia (Still a horrible idea that would have ended badly). Had Germany negotiated strongly with Great Britain, released POW's, made concessions to France and held off the Battle of Britain it would have been at least feasible for the British people to tire of it and push for a negotiated peace. This would have allowed Hitler to hold gains in Eastern Europe, stave off a two front war, and allow a proper build up of logistics and newer technology to possibly have a chance against Stalin's Russia. Hitler was a megalomaniac though and his lust for power and control would not abide it. If Japan had not attacked the U.S.A. and stuck to negotiations while whittling down the European powers and colonies in the area skirting U.S. territories they may have been able to hold onto some of their gains as well. This would have eventually allowed them to build up resources and industrial power to eventually challenge the U.S. The land war in China was a bust; however, they could have held onto some of the coastal areas. They should have continued to pour gasoline on the fires of the Chinese civil war and allowed the Chinese to defeat themselves. Overall it is just not possible for two nations (I am not really including Italy here) to basically defeat the combined might of the Powers that were arrayed against them or even have any semblance of a chance in the long term in a protracted total war. I am not discounting the great threat they posed or the damage they did. Japan was a real threat to the U.S. The U.S. navy knew this and were very aware of the dangers posed by Japanese power despite the shortcomings of the industrial output and resources.

Good input from the posters here. I do appreciate no one screaming "IDIOT" at me. I learned a lot of good information by reading the replies. Several things I was not aware of. The general poor state of Japanese logistical planning and abilities. The strength and disposition of US Air defenses, naval power, and coastal defenses along the Atlantic coast I didn't figure in much opposition to the Japanese forces in the Indian ocean after the fall of Singapore and the surface engagements fought in the area. I have not read much regarding this theatre. I was surprised to learn about the strength of the Allied Submarine forces that were staged in this area. The dismal preparation of the Japanese merchant shipping for all out war was a surprise to me. I had discounted any Allied forces in Southern Africa as I had not figured there was much Allied anti shipping ability even located on this continent other then near the Med. I also appreciate all of you posting links for me to follow to educate myself on the topics you mentioned. You are all a great source of information and open up new ideas and thoughts and facts I have missed for years. I do enjoy reading the historical posts on this forum. Thanks for the replies.

I was not thinking of Japanese heavy cruisers or BB's bombarding coastal fortifications. I was more relating to a massed airstrike upon East coast naval bases or port facilities. Would they have fared better than pearl harbor? I am not aware of the defensive abilities of these areas at this time or how prepared they were either. Like I said earlier I am far from a historian and what I do not know far exceeds what I know. I just know early in the war the Japanese Carrier pilots were highly skilled veterans and at this point had aircraft that out performed what we had in inventory generally. Fixed fortifications do little to stop an air attack, and again I do not know the disposition of antiaircraft defenses around east coast facilities at this time. Keep in mind the puny Japanese task force did wreck havoc on the U.S. Pacific fleet for quite a while.

Japan and Germany truly didn't provide much support at all in any way to each other during the War. I always wonder how this could have played out in a manner where they worked in unison as true Allies despite the geographic distance. Had they done this it would not have changed the outcome of the war in my opinion as Japan didn't have the necessary resources, industrial output, and manpower to be of much help to Germany. Japan with its long range aircraft, bombers, and carrier battle forces did have an ability to project power far beyond their borders in a significant manner, at least early in the war. Germany had more resources and better industrial ability (again early in the war), but had a lack of an ability to project power much farther than its own ground forces reached. (Not considering its Submarine force of course). If they had shared a lot of technology, tactics, and training and focused on joint objectives as a team effort would it have been enough to make a difference? I don't see it happening in any way that makes a big difference. I brought up this What IF, because a friend of mind just asked me. Imagine a large scale naval battle in the Atlantic between the Allies early in the war and the Axis with Japanese naval assets and it intrigued me. So please do not lambast me or eviscerate me for throwing it out here. That concept was mind churning for me as I imagined a Japanese Air attack on Norfolk or Scapa Flow. It makes me think.

Yeah I got that wrong. LOl my bad there. Prince of Wales, sir you are correct. I just typed before I engaged my brain!

1. Historical Operations, and operations available across most tiers 2. Add a few rewards and flags etc.. for Operation play (smaller of course) 3. Fix the CV's for gods sake please get this fixed soon! I like having CV's in the game (The old CV's anyway). Lets get this dialed down and make it work. I am no CV player either. 4. We need some new Random battle game modes ASAP and some new interesting MAPS. 5. Get the team battles going across servers and make it viable in a wide open time frame so we can have some fun.

I do know the sheer magnitude of the logistics made this next to impossible. I am just thinking out of the box and wondering how it would play out if they had pulled it off, and had enough prior coordination within the AXIS powers to actually make this far out there what if feasible. I do thank you for the specifics though. You obviously know a lot more about this than I do. the scope of knowledge we have on this forum staggers the mind at times.

This is just an idea I kicked around with some buddies and I wanted input form the forum members. Imagine in Late 1941 or early 1942 the Japanese sail a large task force around the Horn of Africa into the Atlantic and head north to assist Germany and Italy in a coordinated effort to challenge the allies for dominance in the Atlantic. Would this have been a disaster for Japan? Would this have worked? Imagine a task force with 4 large fleet carriers and a sizable fleet of powerful Japanese surface combatants supported by DD's, the Italian Navy in the Med, and the German U-Boat force and surface combatants as well. They sail near the U.S. and bomb, and attack U.S. port facilities and harbors and industrial areas on the U.S.east coast, and possibly an attack on the Panama Canal. Then Japan uses their CV's to challenge and attack British Naval dominance (We know how this ended for the Warspite and Repulse) in the Atlantic with the scouting and screening of German U-Boat Wolfpacks. Germany and Italy would need to ramp up construction of Japanese spare parts and ammunition and ordinance of course before the foray into the Atlantic. Could this have worked to the Axis advantage and allowed the Axis to actually invade England?