What Is the Preferred Strategy For the US in Axis and Allies? Why?

Question

Everyone knows how the United States REALLY won World War II. It concentrated first in North Africa, then the Mediterranean (Italy), and closed with the cross-channel invasion at Normandy that ended in Berlin. That is a viable strategy for the U.S. player in Axis and Allies.

A number of U.S. players build a factory in Sinkiang to stop the Japanese occupation of Asia. The logical follow-up to that is to build (or re-build) a Pacific Navy as a hammer to the anvil of Chinese troops. This plan ends with America's "spoils of war" being Japan, China, and the "ASEAN" countries, while the UK and Russia take down Germany.

About the one thing the US (and UK) DIDN'T try to do in World War II was to try to link up with Russia via Norway. But it is the basis of the simple "shuck-shuck" strategy devised by Don Rae.

This appears to be the preferred option of many AA aficionados: Dump American infantry into Norway in "assembly line" fashion after Russia (or the UK) has captured it, send them through Karelia and Eastern Europe to Berlin if necessary (otherwise transport them across the Baltic for an amphibious assault on the enemy heartland with air support).

Is the real life "cross channel" (and cross-Med) strategy the best one in AA? Or do our strategists know something that America's real life military didn't "know" in favoring one of the others?

Answer 1

What Is the Preferred Strategy For the US in Axis and Allies?

You answered your own question - the simple "shuck-shuck" strategy devised by Don Rae. The reason it works is because infantry are cheap and defend at 2, but only attack at 1. Therefore you can build an impenetrable infantry force that can withstand a large German offensive push and keep Germany hemmed into mainland Europe, freeing Russia and the UK to focus on pushing back Japan and tipping (or keeping) the IPC balance in favor of the Allies.

Do our strategists know something that America's "real life" military didn't know?

There were many reasons why "shuck-shuck" was not implemented in real life. Among them include:

• Geopolitical reasons - remember, the Allies only grudgingly allied with Russia. They were viewed as the lesser of two evils and a necessary ally to help end the war.
• Logistical reasons - moving troops from Norway to Karelia takes "one turn" in the game, but would be more labor and time intensive to accomplish in reality given the topology and climate of that region. Also, I presume the infrastructure to move millions of troops, equipment, and foodstuff was not in place and would need to be built.
• Sociological/psychological reasons - how positively would the American public respond to a war strategy that boiled down to, "We send millions of our own boys into the arctic and down into Russia to have a staring contest with the Germans. We'll liberate France when we get around to it. Also don't forget that this was not long after World War I, which was notorious for brutal trench warfare that resulted in pointless, high casualty offensive actions and long standing stalemates. It would be hard to sell the public on a repeat of a "dig in and wait"-type strategy.
• Economic reasons - the US has the economic means and raw materials to produce modern weaponry at a scale that couldn't be matched by the Axis powers. The US had not been engaged in warfare for years, suffered bombing runs on their mainland factories, and so forth. It wouldn't make much sense to have the US focus on building a large defensive troop position when they could focus on building battleships, bombers, planes, tanks, and so on. Also, in real life the value of a human being is worth more than 3 IPC. :-)