The question to ask about The Italians

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Better yet would be Hitler dropping dead on 21 August 1939.

warspite1

Or 20th April 1889...

^

This.

Bar none the best post in this entire thread of strategy-wanking.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

'The question to ask about The Italians'...is how far away from Italy this thread can possibly go.

warspite1

To which of course the answer is - not very. We are looking at a Med-first strategy and so Italy is going to be pretty central to a lot of the discussion (should the thread continue).

That is true, but you all should be able to agree about something after 540 posts. Instead there appears to be a diverging lack of consensus typical of internet arguments. [8|]

Issues:

1. What is the impact of delaying Barbarossa to pursue a Med-first strategy (including Japan's intentions)?

2. What is the German chance (%) to take Gibraltar (a) with Spain's help; b) without Spain's help (with political fallout)?

3. What is USSR reaction to a German move into Turkey? a)Turkey fights; b)Turkey goes along with it

4. Mussolini's attitude to all this, including to German 'help' in improving Italy's armed forces

5. USA response to Spain and Turkey (I assume the British response is predictable)

Did I miss anything?

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

'The question to ask about The Italians'...is how far away from Italy this thread can possibly go.

warspite1

To which of course the answer is - not very. We are looking at a Med-first strategy and so Italy is going to be pretty central to a lot of the discussion (should the thread continue).

That is true, but you all should be able to agree about something after 540 posts. Instead there appears to be a diverging lack of consensus typical of internet arguments. [8|]

Issues:

1. What is the impact of delaying Barbarossa to pursue a Med-first strategy (including Japan's intentions)?

2. What is the German chance (%) to take Gibraltar (a) with Spain's help; b) without Spain's help (with political fallout)?

3. What is USSR reaction to a German move into Turkey? a)Turkey fights; b)Turkey goes along with it

4. Mussolini's attitude to all this, including to German 'help' in improving Italy's armed forces

5. USA response to Spain and Turkey (I assume the British response is predictable)

Did I miss anything?

6th August 1945 the Axis lose the war. Hiroshima or Berlin or another German city it makes no difference.

Ultimately they lose and the Allies win.

Damn, I'm getting drawn in to the strategy-wanking.

[:)]

[gamer78]

3. What is USSR reaction to a German move into Turkey? a)Turkey fights; b)Turkey goes along with it

You mean by 'goes along with it' they won't fight it will be a mistake. [:)] Remember Greeks official independence(1830) They formed their own militia against Ottomans. And with an ultimatum from nazi they still continue to fight against all odds in WW'2. A bit sympathy from' İttihat Terakki tradition' between Germany and Turkey doesn't mean sympathy will remain when German soldiers in Anatolia. They will be enemies.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: gamer78

3. What is USSR reaction to a German move into Turkey? a)Turkey fights; b)Turkey goes along with it

You mean by 'goes along with it' they won't fight it will be a mistake. [:)] Remember Greeks official independence(1830) They formed their own militia against Ottomans. And with an ultimatum from nazi they still continue to fight against all odds in WW'2. A bit sympathy from' İttihat Terakki tradition' between Germany and Turkey doesn't mean sympathy will remain when German soldiers in Anatolia. They will be enemies.

You misunderstand; I'm not saying that Turkey will or won't resist. I'm asking whether the people in this thread agree about this issue.

[Platoonist]

ORIGINAL: IslandInland



6th August 1945 the Axis lose the war. Hiroshima or Berlin or another German city it makes no difference.

Ultimately they lose and the Allies win.
[:)]

Yes, but you see before then, Hitler by utilizing his conquered resources, will have deployed his orbiting heat-ray wunderwaffe and both the Oak Ridge and Hanford atomic facilities would just be smoldering cinders...and...and...

Damn, I'm getting drawn in to the stategy-wanking

You're right. Might be thread ejection time before I even get off the ground.. [X(]

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

ORIGINAL: IslandInland



6th August 1945 the Axis lose the war. Hiroshima or Berlin or another German city it makes no difference.

Ultimately they lose and the Allies win.
[:)]

Yes, but you see before then, Hitler by utilizing his conquered resources, will have deployed his orbiting heat-ray wunderwaffe and both the Oak Ridge and Hanford atomic facilities would just be smoldering cinders...and...and...

Damn, I'm getting drawn in to the stategy-wanking

You're right. Might be thread ejection time before I even get off the ground.. [X(]

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: gamer78

3. What is USSR reaction to a German move into Turkey? a)Turkey fights; b)Turkey goes along with it

You mean by 'goes along with it' they won't fight it will be a mistake. [:)] Remember Greeks official independence(1830) They formed their own militia against Ottomans. And with an ultimatum from nazi they still continue to fight against all odds in WW'2. A bit sympathy from' İttihat Terakki tradition' between Germany and Turkey doesn't mean sympathy will remain when German soldiers in Anatolia. They will be enemies.

You misunderstand; I'm not saying that Turkey will or won't resist. I'm asking whether the people in this thread agree about this issue.

Yes I also wonder -if it's about it- How and when will USSR have reaction. Stalin probably has distance to Turkey (İsmet Inönü) more than Lenin and Voroshilov.
Cheers.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

'The question to ask about The Italians'...is how far away from Italy this thread can possibly go.

warspite1

To which of course the answer is - not very. We are looking at a Med-first strategy and so Italy is going to be pretty central to a lot of the discussion (should the thread continue).

That is true, but you all should be able to agree about something after 540 posts. Instead there appears to be a diverging lack of consensus typical of internet arguments. [8|]

Issues:

1. What is the impact of delaying Barbarossa to pursue a Med-first strategy (including Japan's intentions)?

2. What is the German chance (%) to take Gibraltar (a) with Spain's help; b) without Spain's help (with political fallout)?

3. What is USSR reaction to a German move into Turkey? a)Turkey fights; b)Turkey goes along with it

4. Mussolini's attitude to all this, including to German 'help' in improving Italy's armed forces

5. USA response to Spain and Turkey (I assume the British response is predictable)

Did I miss anything?

warspite1

I think there is some limited consensus, although in the main there is much that we can't agree on. I guess ultimately we are talking about a 'what-if' that is itself, difficult to reconcile i.e. Hitler agreeing to postpone Barbarossa.

There are two ways of trying to make Hitler's non-historical move work; try and build some kind of 'believable' framework within which Hitler could be persuaded to undertake a Med-first strategy, or alternatively one can simply throw out the window what we know of personalities, context, thought process at the time etc etc and just adopt an Axis fanbois dream scenario. I'm not really interested in the latter, but I'm curious about the former.

You've mentioned five points above, but you've missed the one that kicks all this off - and one that Curtis Lemay refuses to expand upon even though this is his scenario. Hitler has been persuaded to move south (a major volte face but let's go with it). Is it really feasible that the UK is left alone, completely untouched, while the Luftwaffe 'demonstrate' (whatever that means)?

Let's be honest no, it's most unlikely, but we know why he doesn't want to agree to that. We know that any Luftwaffe attempt to attack the UK by air will fail - and moreover will be costly. That doesn't fit his scenario.

I've asked for thoughts but suspect that there is insufficient interest in the topic to get any response - which is fair enough. But that is fine, Curtis Lemay's scenario has piqued my interest and I will continue to post.

[IslandInland]

People, stop strategy-wanking...

just r e l a x

, , , , , ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yem_iEHiyJ0

[8D]

[Zovs]

So forgive my ignorance, but 'what if' (I know that Hitler liked the British and it was not even in his wheelhouse, but bear with me) Hitler actually listened to his military and decided that the best way to take out Russia was to first take out England. Besides Goering's stupidity, how would have Hitler and his high command (maybe he sacks Goering) actually planned a three part invasion. The Low Countries, France and then England?

We know historically that the Germans were able to take out the Low Countries and France, and if Hitler had not meddled with the drive on the channel maybe some of those French and British troops would have been captured. Now if they (the German High Command) had realistic plans in place to actually invade England, why could they have not done so?

I think (mainly based on some history and a lot of wargames) that Spain would have been even more pro-axis if German had taken out England. The downside I think is that Stalin would most likely invaded Poland in the summer of 1942 or at least had his defenses in order to stop any German offensive or at least mitigate it down so it was not a complete disaster of the summer of 1941.

I am currently trying to play this particular scenario out (originally I started with the 1940 scenario but when back to the 1939 scenario) in Computer War in Europe 2 (CWIE2). The main problem with my 'sandbox' is I am playing all 3 sides and I know what I am trying to do...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

So forgive my ignorance, but 'what if' (I know that Hitler liked the British and it was not even in his wheelhouse, but bear with me) Hitler actually listened to his military and decided that the best way to take out Russia was to first take out England. Besides Goering's stupidity, how would have Hitler and his high command (maybe he sacks Goering) actually planned a three part invasion. The Low Countries, France and then England?

We know historically that the Germans were able to take out the Low Countries and France, and if Hitler had not meddled with the drive on the channel maybe some of those French and British troops would have been captured. Now if they (the German High Command) had realistic plans in place to actually invade England, why could they have not done so?

warspite1

Well when you say listened to his military, it depends who you mean. Goering and Raeder thought the plan was nuts, it was only some sections of the army that thought Sea Lion was no more than a wide river crossing.

Goering was completely disinterested in an invasion and was happy to undertake BoB because he thought his Luftwaffe would destroy Fighter Command regardless (which is why the idea of 'demonstrating' rather than attacking the British is so unrealistic).

Raeder, iirc, wasn't even invited to the conference in which Hitler committed the Kriegsmarine to delivering a broad front landing....

When you consider what it took the Allies to plan, launch and successfully execute Overlord, it puts into perspective the comic opera that was the German High Command on the subject of Sea Lion.

Sea Lion would require complete inter-service co-operation, it would require things to go right, for contingency planning etc etc. What Germany had in reality was two branches out of three that didn't believe in the project and one that did, didn't seem to understand the complexity - or at least took it too lightly.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: UP844

This 1921 map, taken from the Wiki entry about Spanish railways, shows another rail link on the Mediterranean coast, but - as Warspite pointed out - using it would have meant to pass through Vichy territory and, moreover, it would have implied having a much longer - and even more vulnerable to Royal Navy attacks - supply line to any forces attacking from the north.

One point on this: Note that there are multiple rail lines once you get past the constriction point at the border. So, handling rail traffic can only be an issue in that one place - much simpler to address than if it was all the way to Madrid.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: UP844

This 1921 map, taken from the Wiki entry about Spanish railways, shows another rail link on the Mediterranean coast, but - as Warspite pointed out - using it would have meant to pass through Vichy territory and, moreover, it would have implied having a much longer - and even more vulnerable to Royal Navy attacks - supply line to any forces attacking from the north.

One point on this: Note that there are multiple rail lines once you get past the constriction point at the border. So, handling rail traffic can only be an issue in that one place - much simpler to address than if it was all the way to Madrid.

warspite1

Well just about everything I've read about Spain post the Civil War mentions the damage caused to the infrastructure and transport links. This is a nice pretty map - but I wonder how many rail lines were up and running, I wonder how much rolling stock and locomotives were actually in service.

This is another example of you wanting, from Germany's point of view, the good (the armed forces are in no fit state to fight) but won't take any bad (the country's infrastructure and services have been devastated).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Here's SPI's shot of the Balkans:

Note the terrain is much tougher than Spain and no better than Turkey. Claims that the Germans have never faced anything but flat tank country are false.

warspite1

Certainly not a claim I've made, but regardless, the terrain being tougher is not necessarily true (interestingly the GR/D map appears considerably less hilly than the SPI version).

As has been said before, look at the short distance that the Axis troops needed to travel - remember the Germans attacked the poor Yugoslavs from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, while the Italians came at the Yugoslavs from Italy and Albania. They were almost completely surrounded. It was not the one axis of attack that confronts the Germans in Spain. The supply lines were longer. There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either.

Distance to Madrid from the border was 12 hexes. To Athens from the border is also 12 hexes. That's without going through Yugoslavia first, of course. Hills all the way in Greece. Not so in Spain.

I'll note here that my Spain map shot is post 401 on page 14, and my Turkey map shot is post 386 on page 13.

[RangerJoe]

If Germany would have taken out the BEF at Dunkirk with the Panzers, then taken out some armour for refitting, had the paratroopers refitted, then a surprise push across the Channel may have worked. The paratroopers in transports form up like a bomber force attacking England behind a real bomber force hitting the radar installations and the fighter air bases, then a quick paradrop to capture at least one airfield. Or do so just as dawn is breaking so the RAF Fighter Command has little daylight to react to it. Gliders, if available, loaded with light armour and artillery with prime movers with a few barges loaded and coming across the channel to grab some beach front property.

The air base would have fuel, supplies, and ground personnel for Luftwaffe planes that need help but they don't need to be based there, just stage them from France and top off the fighters fuel cells. This would effectively enhance their range, provide more time over the target, avoid the Channel radars, and hopefully save air crews from capture from aircraft that would otherwise be lost over the Channel.

The ground troops would consolidate their positions and enhance them. They would move out and try to get at least one airbase away from the coast so it would not be under Naval bombardment. More troops, supplies, and equipment would be flown in to increase their lodgement. If necessary, Luftwaffe bombers could also bring in supplies or just paradrop them although they might be needed as flying artillery.

With mines laid in a corridor in the Channel with U-boats and E-boats, that could hamper the RN a little bit. Especially if the Kriegsmarine staged a breakout attempt with some heavy surface raiders to distract the Royal Navy. Then the Royal Navy may be out of position.

If Little Bennie wanted in, Italy should have consulted with Germany and arranged plans for Gibralter, Malta, and the Suez/Port Said. Troops coming ashore from ships docked at Port Said with at least one ship ready to be sunk in the Canal to block it. A small invasion force appearing to be troops deploying to North Afrika with a diversion during the night to Malta. Troops coming ashore or disembarking from ships at The Rock. All done within an hour of an Italian declaration of war, in fact once the declaration had been given to the United Kingdom, then Benito goes on the air which is the notice for disembarking of the invasion forces. Only a few people in the highest command levels need to be aware of what is happening.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well just about everything I've read about Spain post the Civil War mentions the damage caused to the infrastructure and transport links. This is a nice pretty map - but I wonder how many rail lines were up and running, I wonder how much rolling stock and locomotives were actually in service.

This is another example of you wanting, from Germany's point of view, the good (the armed forces are in no fit state to fight) but won't take any bad (the country's infrastructure and services have been devastated).

Of course they would have to repair the rail lines.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You've mentioned five points above, but you've missed the one that kicks all this off - and one that Curtis Lemay refuses to expand upon even though this is his scenario. Hitler has been persuaded to move south (a major volte face but let's go with it). Is it really feasible that the UK is left alone, completely untouched, while the Luftwaffe 'demonstrate' (whatever that means)?

Let's be honest no, it's most unlikely, but we know why he doesn't want to agree to that. We know that any Luftwaffe attempt to attack the UK by air will fail - and moreover will be costly. That doesn't fit his scenario.

I've asked for thoughts but suspect that there is insufficient interest in the topic to get any response - which is fair enough. But that is fine, Curtis Lemay's scenario has piqued my interest and I will continue to post.

I've said from the getgo that there will be no BoB. I still think that just the presence of the huge force left on the channel border, the accumulation of barges, and any sort of activity by the remaining Luftwaffe will be enough to prevent the British from committing more than a token force to Spain. Regardless, even if the entire British army on Britain is committed, there will then be no threat left for France, and most of what was on the channel can be committed to Spain.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Here's SPI's shot of the Balkans:

Note the terrain is much tougher than Spain and no better than Turkey. Claims that the Germans have never faced anything but flat tank country are false.

warspite1

Certainly not a claim I've made, but regardless, the terrain being tougher is not necessarily true (interestingly the GR/D map appears considerably less hilly than the SPI version).

As has been said before, look at the short distance that the Axis troops needed to travel - remember the Germans attacked the poor Yugoslavs from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, while the Italians came at the Yugoslavs from Italy and Albania. They were almost completely surrounded. It was not the one axis of attack that confronts the Germans in Spain. The supply lines were longer. There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either.

Distance to Madrid from the border was 12 hexes. To Athens from the border is also 12 hexes. That's without going through Yugoslavia first, of course. Hills all the way in Greece. Not so in Spain.

I'll note here that my Spain map shot is post 401 on page 14, and my Turkey map shot is post 386 on page 13.

Hills. Are they steep or gently rolling? Are you moving between them or do you have to go over them and capture them? There is a difference. Do you know the difference? Have you any experience climbing hills with full field equipment?

If you drive a tank up a hill, the defenders can see and shoot at the lightly armoured belly. They can also have an easier time throwing gas bombs on the top of them not to mention shooting at the weak top armour or even into the engine compartment. Not to mention open topped vehicles like half tracks full of troops. German barbeque anyone?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Here's SPI's shot of the Balkans:

Note the terrain is much tougher than Spain and no better than Turkey. Claims that the Germans have never faced anything but flat tank country are false.

warspite1

Certainly not a claim I've made, but regardless, the terrain being tougher is not necessarily true (interestingly the GR/D map appears considerably less hilly than the SPI version).

As has been said before, look at the short distance that the Axis troops needed to travel - remember the Germans attacked the poor Yugoslavs from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, while the Italians came at the Yugoslavs from Italy and Albania. They were almost completely surrounded. It was not the one axis of attack that confronts the Germans in Spain. The supply lines were longer. There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either.

Distance to Madrid from the border was 12 hexes. To Athens from the border is also 12 hexes. That's without going through Yugoslavia first, of course. Hills all the way in Greece. Not so in Spain.

I'll note here that my Spain map shot is post 401 on page 14, and my Turkey map shot is post 386 on page 13.

warspite1

Okay so you've ignored Yugoslavia (no acknowledgement that you were wrong there) and now you are going for Greece. Going through Yugoslavia? Again you miss the key points. The Germans also attacked from Bulgaria too. The Greeks, facing the Italian in Albania were suddenly facing an enemy in the rear.

The Greeks in the northwest were supplied from Salonika, once this port was taken - and the terrain is not defender friendly - then the Greeks were in trouble.

From The German Campaign in the Balkans

According to military doctrine the mountainous terrain of Greece would seem ideally suited for defense. The high ranges of the Rhodope, Epirus, Pindus, and Olympus Mountains offer many possibilities to stop an invader. However, the defender must have sufficient air power, if the many defiles are not to become traps for his ground forces.

Whereas an invader thrusting from Albania can be stopped with relatively small forces in the high Pindus Mountains, the northeastern part of the country is difficult to defend against an attack from the north. Eastern Macedonia and western Thrace are narrow strips of land that can be cut off from the rest of Greece by an advance following the course of the Vardar River. Salonika, the only efficient port in northern Greece, is situated within this vulnerable area. The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions. Since a voluntary withdrawal of the Greek forces in Albania was not feasible and Salonika was practically indefensible, the Greek and British commands resigned themselves to fighting a delaying action in the northeastern part of the country. The British fully realized the vulnerability of the Greek border defense system; it was bound to collapse in the event of a German thrust between the Strimon and Vardar Rivers. However, they let the Greeks have their way without taking the logical step of moving their forces up to the frontier into the sector west of the Metaxas Line.

Why do you keep missing fundamentally important points?