Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I used to play a computer war game about this invasion, and I found the best approach is to take Leningrad first, not that this reflects reality of course.  It links you up with the Finns who can assist in suppressing saboteurs in the rear areas and allows an attack on Moscow from the northwest.  Taking Moscow does cause the Russian all sorts of problems.  In reality I agree with the southern approach, and in 1942 they almost pulled it off.

Guderian wrote a very self serving book about how he could have won the war without Hitler's interference, a lot of other writers have contested that premise.

Same thing as Midway might have taken longer but USA supplies Stalin thru Pacific routes to Murmansk .Kaiser Ship Building was completing Liberty Ships in 2-3 weeks.So the War gets dragged on a few more yrs.Sometimes the British i.e.Monty were an impediment to the war effort

I see Monty as an interesting character who gets somewhat unfairly run down here in the US.  He was an EXTREMELY cautious general and that was just what the situation called for in North Africa where supply lines were threatened and resupply could not be counted on.  The problem is that he was still EXTREMELY cautious a few years later when the Allies controlled the seas and skies and any overreach could be covered by massively superior air and sea power and any cut off troops could be resupplied without too much difficulty.  

That is a little bit like a great coach who is overly attached to a power run game.  He is a great coach if he happens to have the right personnel to run THAT offense.  If he has Humongous run-blocking O-Linemen, a great runner who can function as a QB, and WR's who are good at blocking he'll have a lot of success.  However, if he has smaller pass-blocking O-Linemen, a great pocket passer who doesn't move well as a QB, and speedy WR's who are great at catching passes but suck at blocking then that coach will fail.  

I see Admiral Halsey as the inverse.  He was famously aggressive and that worked out great when the right answer was to be aggressive but it also caused a lot of problems (such as for Taffy-3 off the Island of Samar) when being overly-aggressive was decidedly NOT the right answer.  

Which commander (or coach) is better?  Well that depends on whether the situation calls for a cautious or an aggressive commander (or whether you have the personnel to run or pass).  If Halsey had been in charge in North Africa the British might have lost Egypt.  If Monty had been in charge in the South Pacific he might still be waiting to accumulate enough forces to invade Guadalcanal.   

A REALLY great commander (or coach) is one who can correctly figure out what the situation warrants then do that even if it isn't necessarily in his comfort zone.  

I'm thinking if the Brits lose the air battle over the island, they sue for peace, and Hitler turns east.

The Suez was strategically important of course.  It virtually knocked Italy out of the war, in effect.  Much has been made of the "soft underbelly" strategy.

ITALY - really that was another Churchill cock up.It was here that Marshall/FDR/IKE started clashing with the brandy adled Englishman. Just to sail supplies/men/materiel from South Hampton to like Salerno was 2500 nautical miles(I've read)It was like 12-1400 miles in a straight line. And the Alps stretch across the top of Italy Hannibal crossed it like 3,000 yrs ago.You get a Division of Gerries up there and they'd hold it just like the Austrians did in Slovenia during WWI at the Ljubljana Pass.Hell just taking  Monte Cassino was 4 months

The Battle of Britain really was more of a campaign 

The British were out manned and the main reason they won this was the stupid decision by the Germans to stop concentrating on the air fields and other defenses and start going after the cities instead

this gave Britain time to catch its breath and beat them

A factor also was range of the German fighters, they didn't have much combat time over England, and if shot down, they either died or were captured.

The Me-110 was not very useful as a fighter.  Fighters had short legs in 1940, for the most part.