The question to ask about The Italians

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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?

No, there really isn't any difference. Tactically, the defenders can arrange their lines so that they make best use of the terrain, however it is oriented. The important thing is that the Germans clearly had experience climbing such hills.

In other words, you have no idea of what you are talking about so how about you shut your pie hole and quit typing?

You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill.

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?

Yet Greece could only hold out about a month.

The Greeks were taking out the Italian Army. If they had not been flanked, they could have captured all of Albania. With no Italian invasion or just a Greek holding action against Italy, Germany has a much harder time. By then, the British and Commonwealth forces have arrived.

So it sounds like you have no actual experience other than war games, pushing counters around or using a computer.

You should watch a movie like "Hamburger Hill" to see what it is like attacking uphill.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Okay so you've ignored Yugoslavia (no acknowledgement that you were wrong there) ...

Huh? I can't read your mind. If you have a point, spell it out.

...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.

They attacked from every direction. Some forces had to cross Yugoslavia to get to Greece.

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.

They still could have been supplied through Athens. But this points out that politics impacts deployments. The Greeks didn't want to abandon their north. The Turks will fall into that as well. They'll lose a big chuck of their force on the European side of the straits.

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?

I defy you to find anyplace where I've said that the Greeks defending so far forward was a good idea. I've said the opposite. Had they been deployed in their interior, those lines could have held out for a long time.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill.

I know that hills are decent but not insurmountable terrain.

The Greeks were taking out the Italian Army. If they had not been flanked, they could have captured all of Albania. With no Italian invasion or just a Greek holding action against Italy, Germany has a much harder time. By then, the British and Commonwealth forces have arrived.

So it sounds like you have no actual experience other than war games, pushing counters around or using a computer.

You should watch a movie like "Hamburger Hill" to see what it is like attacking uphill.

I repeat, Greece only held out against the Germans for a month.

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
They still could have been supplied through Athens. But this points out that politics impacts deployments. The Greeks didn't want to abandon their north. The Turks will fall into that as well. They'll lose a big chuck of their force on the European side of the straits.

I don't think Turkey will fall into politics about deployment. Ismet İnönü was called Kaiser 'great chief' in Turkey. There are no parties still until 1950. For a 600 years old Empire last 2 centuries was about to survive. I'm sure they know German army is the best in the world at the time. like in Greek&Turkish War in the past Ankara and then maybe Erzurum could be capital. So unlike other new born nations enthusiasm to defend, Turkey would do it more strategically not concentrated in the border I think.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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?

No, there really isn't any difference. Tactically, the defenders can arrange their lines so that they make best use of the terrain, however it is oriented. The important thing is that the Germans clearly had experience climbing such hills.

In other words, you have no idea of what you are talking about so how about you shut your pie hole and quit typing?

You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill.

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?

Yet Greece could only hold out about a month.

The Greeks were taking out the Italian Army. If they had not been flanked, they could have captured all of Albania. With no Italian invasion or just a Greek holding action against Italy, Germany has a much harder time. By then, the British and Commonwealth forces have arrived.

So it sounds like you have no actual experience other than war games, pushing counters around or using a computer.

You should watch a movie like "Hamburger Hill" to see what it is like attacking uphill.

And yet the German forces made the Allied forces retreat in almost every encounter in both Greece, and Norway.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Don't insult me by comparing me to Lemay.

All I stated was that the German Army not be halted, that they finish the job. How does that become some weird fantasy? Or are you injecting such good pharmaceuticals?

warspite1

I wasn’t comparing you to Lemay. I was simply stating that some of the ideas in his scenario meant the situation was less World War II and more fantasy. In your case I suggested that in coming up with how to make Sea Lion work, you changing what happened at Dunkirk does the same thing.

As said, Lemay’s proposal doesn’t even allow for a Sea Lion and so I don’t even know why I answered your post. If you want to discuss Sea Lion, and under whatever criteria you want, then go ahead. I will do what I should have done in the first place and, after this post, stay out of it – not because Sea Lion is uninteresting (it is interesting) but because that is not what Lemay’s ‘staff study’ is about.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Sufficient or not, what ever they have would have been used. They could also be reused as long as they are not damaged beyond repair or are totally destroyed.

At this time, they were not flying from France into the Bay of Biscay nor the Atlantic.

warspite1

I am sure that there were some gliders. How many I don't know, but if they ruled out the use of any regiments/battalions of the 22nd Air Landing, then I suggest there were not that many. But as said, there were only enough transports for the 7th Flieger Division. If you are going to use whatever gliders there are, these need to be towed. That means these aren’t being used for paratroops.

If you want to believe that the handful of Fw-200 Condor then available were not flying naval air missions in the North Sea and then from Western France starting at the end of June, then that is up to you. There are only perhaps a couple of dozen at most by this point so if you want to use Fw-200 over southern England then fine. As said, at least they won't then be troubling the convoys in future after a high % are shot down (based on the Ju-52 experience in Holland).

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That is what we are discussing, rewriting history. A German commando type raid using gliders can put a lot of explosives on the equipment as well as downing the towers. That just might possibly even put the radar unit out of action for at least one hour. Can you comprehend that?

warspite1

Can I comprehend that? Erm, well yes thanks. I am not saying the Germans couldn’t have put the towers out of action – and there were a number of means possible. What I HAVE SAID, and I will repeat yet again, is that operations to take out the towers and radar stations, and keep them down, would only be ordered if the guy making the decisions understands the need to do so. I will repeat this from The Most Dangerous Enemy (Bungay):

During one meeting Goering questioned the need for continued attacks on the radar towers "as the British have lots of radar stations" and none had been put out of action. This comment was not an order, it was a throw-away line as though the whole subject was of little importance.

So yes, I can fully comprehend what you are saying thank-you. I trust you can comprehend the reasons why Goering was not going to order such missions; he didn’t even understand their importance.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Yes, they knew that they had to keep attacking the towers and the sites themselves. That had means of detecting radio waves. You do understand that radar (not Radar, he is a character) works by using radio waves? That the radio waves can actually be detected at ranges farther than the effective range of the radar?

warspite1

You asked if I understood radar. Well no, I don’t have much knowledge of radar and its workings apart from the basic. But so what? What I know, or understand is totally and utterly irrelevant. It was what Goering knew and understood. And we know from history he didn't. Now, like Lemay - who seems to want to turn Goering into a completely different person in his scenario - if you want to give Goering this understanding then fine, but once again it becomes just another Axis fanbois scenario where the Germans do everything right, but the allies make all the same mistakes....

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It is a distance of 18 nautical miles across the Channel near Calais to the Dover area. Are you stating that the vessels only travel half a nautical mile per hour? It is a 5 to 7 hour trip on a ferry from Ostend to Dover which is a much greater distance. Dover is such a nice, distinctive port. Have you ever been there?

warspite1

Again, not sure why whether I’ve been to Dover – yes of course I’ve driven down the M2 to Dover – is even remotely relevant. But if you want to ignore both British and German sources about the time it would take for these barges to sail from a number of ports along the French and Belgian coast and reach the invasion beaches and instead, quote times for modern day passenger ferries between Ostend and Calais then you go ahead.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

How about 23 June 1940? The barges don't necessarily need conversions. Some of them already have vehicle ramps. Don't forget ferries can also carry vehicles such as tanks. They would be considered Roll On Roll Off vessels. This is also the first time that you asked for a date.

warspite1

Okay, so this is happening 23 June…. So this takes place immediately after Red. You told Lemay that he was being unreasonable because he wasn’t allowing the R+R ahead of Spain, but you now have Sea Lion taking place then??

- The Luftwaffe units need R+R
- The army need R+R
- The barges do need conversion, they need to be taken from the rivers and sent to the ports, the tugs need to be sent to the ports, the massive amount of towing lines need to be prepared, the sailors to man these vessels need to be found. When is all this happening? You think this is some kind of ad-lib operation that can be pulled together at the drop of a hat?
- Sorry I thought you were going to fill Scharnhorst and Gneisenau up with concrete and send them to sea?? On 23 June Scharnhorst, with major damage to her engines, had only just limped into Kiel, while Gneisenau was still in Norway being repaired.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Especially for the attacker facing the 8.8cm Flak, plus 37mm and 20mm auto cannons for lower level attacks - that is, after they fighter defense mauls them. There need not be many dummy runs, if any.

warspite1

Well clearly if this is all happening on 23 June! then there won’t be time for bomber command to make any attacks…..

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You may be confusing this with Operation Neptune, the movement of the invasion fleets to Normandy.

warspite1

Simply. No. Comment

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

That is not what I stated about the transports. If the Germans take off at night and arrive over England around dawn, where is the RAF Fighter Command? Even if the assemble during the day and follow behind a bomber force, is the RAF Fight Command going to meet them right over the beaches? The Luftwaffe would send out fighters sweeps ahead of the air transports along with fighters in close escorting formations.

During the night, how would the British necessarily know about any ship movements in the Channel if the sea invasion forces kept blackout conditions? I do believe that the crews and the soldiers on them would not want to be seen from England.

Of course, maybe you wwould wwant to be seen so you could try swimming in the Channel while you are loaded down with equipment.

warspite1

So let’s re-cap. What you are saying now is that these barges, which are being towed by tugs suddenly become high speed tugs that can get from France to England in a few hours, and they sail in ‘blackout conditions’…. So absolutely no chance of any collisions or accidents there then is there? Not only has there been no time for practice, not only are these crews unused to their tugs/barges (or are you using civilians?), but this operation, that requires massive amounts of co-ordination and order to avoid it becoming an almighty balls up, is all being done in the pitch black. Imagine sailing all these tugs from harbour, connecting the lines to tow the barges (two each!) and then sailing out of port all in the complete darkness, then, with no practice, they are all going to form up perfectly, everyone knows their place, they all know what to do in the event of snagged or broken lines. All the escorts, E-Boats etc need to be in place at the right time too. Cool! It's great being German in WWII isn't it - because normal rules just don't apply?

And when they do get to England the Germans would destroy everything in the Great English Channel Turkey Shoot?

Sure, my mistake, this sounds like a plan.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Hipper was usable. The other vessels would just have to be seen moving north, then return to be repaired or to a port away from prying eyes.

warspite1

No. Just No. The Germans are not going to send their precious and heavily damaged ships to sea (even if they could – you know Lutzow almost had her stern torn off right? - you know Scharnhorst had damage to her engines and prop shaft?) with Allied subs in the area. That is ridiculous. You want to use Hipper instead of her planned operation then fine.

But there is no point Hipper sailing unless she gets spotted (otherwise the diversion doesn’t work). And even then, assuming a) she gets spotted, and b) she doesn't get sunk by the patrols in the Faroes Gap and the Denmark Strait, you think the entire Home Fleet is going to run around like headless chickens because a heavy cruiser has been spotted??

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There was no blockade of Italy yet, such a thing would amount to a declaration of war. That would be bad for the British in the United States.

warspite1

Yes, yes there was.

In September 1939, Britain imposed a selective blockade of Italy. Coal from Germany, which was shipped out of Rotterdam, was declared contraband. The Germans promised to keep up shipments by train, over the Alps, and Britain offered to supply all of Italy's needs in exchange for Italian armaments. The Italians could not agree to the latter terms without shattering their alliance with Germany. On 2 February 1940, however, Mussolini approved a draft contract with the Royal Air Force to provide 400 Caproni aircraft; yet he scrapped the deal on 8 February. British intelligence officer, Francis Rodd, believed that Mussolini was convinced to reverse policy by German pressure in the week of 2–8 February, a view shared by the British ambassador in Rome, Percy Loraine. On 1 March, the British announced that they would block all coal exports from Rotterdam to Italy. Italian coal was one of the most discussed issues in diplomatic circles in the spring of 1940. In April Britain began strengthening the Mediterranean Fleet to enforce the blockade. Despite French uncertainty, Britain rejected concessions to Italy so as not to "create an impression of weakness". Germany supplied Italy with about one million tons of coal a month beginning in the spring of 1940, an amount that even exceeded Mussolini's demand of August 1939 that Italy receive six million tons of coal for its first twelve months of war.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

As far as the Suez canal, prohibiting Italian ships would violate The Convention of Constantinople which was signed by both the United Kingdom and Italy, among others. This Convention allowed warships to use the Suez Canal.

Or a vessel could also have an "engine" malfunction and go to the nearest port.

warspite1

Being allowed to use the Suez Canal, being allowed to use Malta and Gibraltar harbours is not something I said wasn’t allowed. I said that there would be checks made before any old ship is allowed into major naval bases.

But again, I don’t even understand what you are proposing (Malta excepted providing it is properly planned and the Italians throw everything at it) with these attacks. If we assume what? a few hundred, totally unsupported Italian troops land in Gib and Port Said. Ignoring the garrisons there for the moment, what are they going to do then? Can you imagine the Italians sending their navy (led by two 12-inch gunned WWI conversions) to either? Cunningham would have been delighted.

But genuinely, if this works for you then you go with it. Malta, Gibraltar and Suez/Port Said all fall to the Italians on day 1. Forza Italia!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

So Warspite1, with your illegal blockade of Italy before any declaration of war and the violation of The Convention of Constantinople you are actually having the United Kingdom at war with Italy.

warspite1

No, no I'm not, please see above.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I never stated that the destroyed aircraft and gliders would be available but there would be some available.

As far as the heavy surface vessels, the Lutzow was ready on 27 July 1940 and the Hipper was ready before that. Even if it was just the Hipper that went out, the British would have to respond. If the Hipper just was seen and then went into a Norwegian fjord where it was unseen, that would have been effective enough for the Royal Navy to have to respond.

You can temporarily repair hull damage in a ship with concrete, at least enough to make it sea worthy. Let it be seen, then creep back to a safe port then camouflage it.

warspite1

Answered above.

[Aurelian]

The Brits had between 700-800 small coastal craft that would of had something to say about barges being towed to the coast. Only 9 were lost to air attack the entire war. The Luftwaffe made 21 deliberate attacks on them in 1940, and sank.....0. Sure, nine DDs were sunk by air attack in 1940. Out of a force of over 100 in British home waters. Sure 5 were sunk evacuating Dunkirk. Not much of a result given the thousands of sorties flown, thousands of tons of bombs dropped. In 1940, the Luftwaffe was not trained or equipped to attack fast moving naval targets. Eight weeks of air superiority over Norway, and they sank 2 warships. They lacked armor piercing bombs, and the only torpedo bombers they had were HE-115 float planes. Dead meat unless the RAF is beaten.

As for towing gliders at night... How are they going to navigate to the target. And why could they not be intercepted?

Flying gliders to land troops to take out radar. Then you surround the sites with obstacles to wreck the gliders on landing. And what about guarding the sites with troops?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Okay so you've ignored Yugoslavia (no acknowledgement that you were wrong there) ...

Huh? I can't read your mind. If you have a point, spell it out.

...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.

They attacked from every direction. Some forces had to cross Yugoslavia to get to Greece.

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.

They still could have been supplied through Athens. But this points out that politics impacts deployments. The Greeks didn't want to abandon their north. The Turks will fall into that as well. They'll lose a big chuck of their force on the European side of the straits.

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?

I defy you to find anyplace where I've said that the Greeks defending so far forward was a good idea. I've said the opposite. Had they been deployed in their interior, those lines could have held out for a long time.

warspite1

You don’t have to read my mind. I did spell it out. You have chosen to ignore what you don’t like as usual.

In post 527 you tried to make the point (using a game map) that:

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.

In Post 529 I said I’d never made the point about flat tank country, but did make the following pertinent observation:

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..... There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either.

Once again, you’ve been shown to be wrong so you, not very subtly, simply ignored Yugoslavia and moved onto Greece in post 555:

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 responded in Post 560 that you were wrong about Greece too, and quoted from the Centre of Military History – United States Army’s The German Campaign in the Balkans. This made clear:

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.

So your thinking that “Hills are all the way in Greece” just because you’ve looked at a war game map, was shown to be somewhat limited. It also went onto show that, like Yugoslavia, but unlike Spain, the Germans were able to make their initial attacks from more than one direction, and this totally unhinged the Greeks.

But furthermore, that extract from the US military study went further. It clearly stated:

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.

How did you respond?

They still could have been supplied through Athens.

How arrogant is that? Even the game map you provided shows no rail or road link but you simply ignore this and blandly state the opposite of what a military study concluded.

And remember, this is all about your initial comment about how much easier Spain is to attack than Yugoslavia/Greece – and my response showing the terrain does not bear that out in key places, but also that there were multiple directions of attack was in the Germans favour.

I made no mention of whether you said the Greeks defending forward was a good idea or not. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that no, the terrain was not as big a problem as ‘your map’ suggests and moreover, the fact that the Germans were able to attack from almost all sides (Yugoslavia) and from three sides (Greece) – as opposed to one narrow front (Spain) - meant that any defensive terrain benefits were limited.

Who cares what you or I think about Greek disposition. The fact is they did choose to remain strong in the northwest and, because Salonika was so easy to capture, this unhinged their defence (despite what you say about Athens). The point is not why the Greeks did what they did, it is, what was the effect?

So hopefully I have made myself clear and have spelt it out for you? Simply looking at a game’s set of rules and thinking you can conclude from that what was and wasn’t possible in WWII doesn’t wash. Nor does looking at a simple map and deciding you can deduce from that everything you need to know about supply sources and.... well, just about everything else.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

The Brits had between 700-800 small coastal craft that would of had something to say about barges being towed to the coast. Only 9 were lost to air attack the entire war. The Luftwaffe made 21 deliberate attacks on them in 1940, and sank.....0. Sure, nine DDs were sunk by air attack in 1940. Out of a force of over 100 in British home waters. Sure 5 were sunk evacuating Dunkirk. Not much of a result given the thousands of sorties flown, thousands of tons of bombs dropped. In 1940, the Luftwaffe was not trained or equipped to attack fast moving naval targets. Eight weeks of air superiority over Norway, and they sank 2 warships. They lacked armor piercing bombs, and the only torpedo bombers they had were HE-115 float planes. Dead meat unless the RAF is beaten.

warspite1

I did say that was my last post on Sea Lion - but I guess I can't help myself [:D]

I am pretty sure the Germans would inflict some serious damage on whatever was sent out to attack the invasion fleet. I am also sure that the invasion fleet would have been severely mauled. And that is the key. Unless the Germans landed in sufficient strength, as a cohesive fighting force with enough surviving barges to allow for subsequent waves and re-supply, then any landing would be doomed.

TulliusDetrious blandly says the Germans could afford to lose a whole corps. He doesn't seem to understand that a whole corp's worth of invasion barges mean the German follow up waves and re-supply comes largely to a halt.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

As for towing gliders at night... How are they going to navigate to the target. And why could they not be intercepted?

warspite1

One only has to look at D-Day. Even if they weren't intercepted the potential for the drops to go wrong were so high. But there is no reason to believe that there would be at least one of: interception, AA fire or units on the ground to rip into the scattered paras.

But these scenarios always assume the Germans do everything right and the enemy are klutzes

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Flying gliders to land troops to take out radar. Then you surround the sites with obstacles to wreck the gliders on landing. And what about guarding the sites with troops?

[/quote]warspite1

Yes, the British laid a lot of obstacles on any stretch of clear ground. Good point about the troops, I don't know what level of guard (if any) there was around the radar stations.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: 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.

warspite1

But you are totally missing the point. WHY is there no BoB? We know why it happened in real life - and it wasn't because of Sea Lion, which Goering couldn't give a fig about. So for BoB not to happen in your scenario you are, once again and for no purpose (other than Axis fanboisism), making Goering into a completely different animal.

As said, if you want to play total fantasy why not war game the LoTR vs GoT? There has to be a measure of realism or what's the point?

warspite1

And we still need an answer to this - without which the scenario can't get off the ground.

WHY is there no BoB? I know you don't want one because we know the Germans get seriously mauled, but you have to come up with a believable reason why Goering and Hitler don't go with it.

The Battle of Britain happened in real life despite Goering not believing in Sea Lion, despite Hitler seeming to be luke warm at the very best.

As many historians have noted. Sea Lion couldn't happen without a successful BoB (for Germany), but a successful BoB would mean that Sea Lion almost certainly wouldn't have been necessary. A successful BoB, by its very definition, means Fighter Command effectively ceases to exist.

June 1940, despite not insignificant losses, the Luftwaffe are on a high. they've swept everything put up against them from the sky. They are told that the RAF is on it's last knees.

Goering has to keep his pride and joy in the spotlight as far as Hitler is concerned. Hitler is angry with Britain, she won't give in.

You think that is the perfect background to Goering and Hitler deciding to leave the UK alone to recover for at least the rest of 1940.

You haven't given one single reason to justify Goering now changing from his historical path.

[RangerJoe]

The Home defences were not seriously started until May 1940. The 500,000 rifles plus the artillery sent from the US did not arrive until the end of July. The British were so short of ammunition that they did not even practice marksmanship.

I had already stated that maybe one panzer division or at least part of one pause after Dunkirk and refit. The German Armee simply keeps moving at Dunkirk instead of pausing.

The Initial airborne raid would either take place at dawn or after a wave of bombers so they are much less likely to be attacked by the RAF. They would also fly lower so they may not even been seen by the Chain Home radio stations. How many anti-air craft artillery units were there right along the coast at the time?

I also stated that the gliders could even be towed by Stukas and/or Me-109s - even the HS-126. So no actual transport aircraft needed. You may be thinking of the larger gliders that were built later. The HS-126 could also probably land and recover the glider and troops along with any captured equipment and personnel.

The beach defenses had a few men and maybe a machine gun every mile or so along the coast and a bicycle messenger, no land lines or radios. Not every exit from the beaches were guarded, if they were defended it was by a few men and maybe an automatic weapon.

The British were woefully short of anti-tank guns and other artillery.

If done right after the French surrender or even before, it would work. All Goering would have to do is to listen to his experts and air commanders, then say "I don't think that it is necessary but if you think it should be done, then allocate some resources to do so." German paratroopers were members of the Luftwaffe so they would also be at their disposal.

[Zovs]

Seems like all the posting my post got lost. Any comments on it with regards to Sealion and Battle of Britain? See post # 579.

Also, I am just getting into watching all the tutorials on MWIF...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Seems like all the posting my post got lost. Any comments on it with regards to Sealion and Battle of Britain? See post # 579.

Also, I am just getting into watching all the tutorials on MWIF...

warspite1

Hi Zovs, not ignoring you, but the trouble I have in commenting on your post is that I don't play SC (played for a little while) and so I don't really have any context in terms of the various + and -.

The other problem is that its not much fun to be saddled too much to history in a strategic game (because players like options) and therefore the modifiers will not necessarily be aimed at realism.

I hope this thread has borne out just how bad a Spanish joining with the Axis would be for Spain (and possibly Germany!) but that is boring when playing SC isn't it?

Equally it should - if realistic - be a massive problem politically (other Axis powers) and militarily (Occupation drain) and humanitarian (starvation) if the Germans invade the country and then install a German puppet.

I just think these two scenarios are so extreme (unless of course Spain enters because the Germans have beaten the British in Egypt, taken Malta and/or invaded the UK) that I can't see it happening realistically.

If I read it right, there is no - modifier if Sea Lion is attempted and fails? Now THAT would be a problem for Germany [:)]

[UP844]

ORIGINAL: UP844

2) As for RAF pilots, they sunk approximately half the merchant ships sunk on the Italy to Libya/Tunisia routes in 1940-43.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I'd like to see a source for that. That figure is way too high. Unless the Tunisian Campaign skews things, but 1940-42 sorry but no.

You are right: after I posted, I discovered that the data I found reported the overall Axis merchant ship losses in the Mediterranean, so it also includes the (many) ships sunk in harbour. I'm looking for some more accurate reports.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The British had dive bombers. Old, obsolete crappy dive-bombers, but dive bombers nonetheless.

Indeed the Skuas of 800 and 803 Squadrons sunk the Konigsberg - the first ship sunk by dive bombers and indeed the first warship sunk by air attack.

I know about the Skuas, but as far as I know they were built in small numbers, mostly for carrier use by the Fleet Air Arm, so I did not consider them.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You don’t have to read my mind. I did spell it out. You have chosen to ignore what you don’t like as usual.

In post 527 you tried to make the point (using a game map) that:

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.

In Post 529 I said I’d never made the point about flat tank country, ...

But others did.

but did make the following pertinent observation:

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..... There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either.

Once again, you’ve been shown to be wrong so you, not very subtly, simply ignored Yugoslavia and moved onto Greece in post 555:

You're so desperate to find some sort of error in my posts that you resort to inventing them. The above is a straw man. I've never said anything contrary to the above. All I said was that the terrain in Yugoslavia and Greece was worse than Spain and at least equal to Turkey. And, the Yugoslavia attackers had to cross lots of Yugoslavia to get to Greece.

I responded in Post 560 that you were wrong about Greece too, and quoted from the Centre of Military History – United States Army’s The German Campaign in the Balkans. This made clear:

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.

That only concerns the area east of Salonika - which the Greeks were fools to try to defend. The Germans have to get to Athens to force Greek surrender.

So your thinking that “Hills are all the way in Greece”

I was specifically referring to Athens.

But furthermore, that extract from the US military study went further. It clearly stated:

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.

How did you respond?

They still could have been supplied through Athens.

How arrogant is that? Even the game map you provided shows no rail or road link but you simply ignore this and blandly state the opposite of what a military study concluded.

Again, that is if they had deployed in the interior, instead of at their frontier.

What can't be escaped is that the terrain in Yugoslavia and Greece is worse than the terrain in Spain and at least equal to the terrain in Turkey.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

WHY is there no BoB?

Because they have decided to do a Med Strategy. They know they will not attempt a channel crossing, so why risk using a tactical air force in a strategic role?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

WHY is there no BoB?

Because they have decided to do a Med Strategy. They know they will not attempt a channel crossing, so why risk using a tactical air force in a strategic role?

warspite1

For EXACTLY the same reason they did in real life. The RAF was ripe for the taking (supposedly). The Luftwaffe was all conquering and this was the chance to smash Fighter Command into the ground. Without an air force, the chances were high (whether that was wishful thinking from Hitler or not was immaterial) that Britain would sue for peace.

At the very least, fighting the British would stop them thinking they could reinforce North Africa (or at very least limit what they could send).

Many in Britain didn't believe an invasion was likely - but this did start to change by September. I wonder why that was? Oh yes, it was because the Germans had been hammering away at Fighter Command (and selected other targets).

If that military colossus Goering was so concerned that his Luftwaffe was to be used correctly then why did he agree to bombing London?

Your suggestion would have more weight if you didn't insist that Italy don't try and attack Egypt. I mean don't get me wrong, it would still be wrong, but at least it would show good faith. But instead? Two bits of positive news for the British in the early years of the war; BoB and Compass.... and guess who has the Axis not undertaking the former and stearing clear of the latter?

Just too predictable. An Axis fanbois scenario, not a sensible look at a Med first strategy.

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Hi Zovs, not ignoring you, but the trouble I have in commenting on your post is that I don't play SC (played for a little while) and so I don't really have any context in terms of the various + and -.

warspite thank you!

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I hope this thread has borne out just how bad a Spanish joining with the Axis would be for Spain (and possibly Germany!) but that is boring when playing SC isn't it?

This is true for both SC and CWIE2, if Spain does join the Axis in CWIE2, then the Axis would have had to take out the UK and be deep in Russia and by that point in the game (if the Allied player was still even interested in playing) the game would be over by the time Spain did so. Likewise it would be complete foolishness to invade Spain in CWIE2, once the CW grows enough and once the US arrive then Spain and Portugal will soon be invaded, probably when German is just getting into Russia, or if Russia attacked first.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Equally it should - if realistic - be a massive problem politically (other Axis powers) and militarily (Occupation drain) and humanitarian (starvation) if the Germans invade the country and then install a German puppet.

Correct.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If I read it right, there is no - modifier if Sea Lion is attempted and fails? Now THAT would be a problem for Germany [:)]

Well in CWIE2 terms a failed Sealion means the loss of the NTPs (Naval Transport Points) and Amph points, plus the AP (Air Points) and any ATP (Air Transport Points) not to mention the combat losses involved, this all equates out to lost production and personal points for the Germans, which is a problem in and of it's self in that game, which essentially means a great wreaking of the German ground and air forces to proceed with the war in the east or defend itself from the CW and US in mainland Europe and or Italy.