The question to ask about The Italians

[Zovs]

So since we got all the none-sense out of the way what does that leave us for a Med First Strategy?

We know that Hitler would not let go of Russia in 1941 right? We also know that Hitler was not interested really in invading England, personally, and when Goering 'let him down and lost prestige' with Hitler by loosing the Battle of Britain. And we know that Hitler would not invade Spain. So what or where does that leave this question?

The only possibility that I can see is that as Hitler builds up for Russia in 1941, puts as much pressure as he can on Franco (and we know that fails anyway), is faced with the Italian debacles in Greece and NA and then diverts some of his resources away from Barbarossa, or puts off Barbarossa till 1942, maybe putting a Panzer Corps and an Infantry Corps into the Med. I don't know if that would be enough, nor if they could ship that much to NA, they would still have to divert some air assets to both the Med and to France, since I am sure the British would not be sitting on their buttocks while Hitler was doing this. The CW would send as much as they could around the horn to NA. Meanwhile this would free up Russia to put pressure on either Rumanian, Hungary and or Finland.

Again, I go back to the gaming aspect. I have sort of done this in CWIE2. But I did not postpone Barbarossa, I did or have siphoned off several Mech and Inf units for the Med, but it's hard to take out the CW completely in NA, it's possible but your supply line is stretch so thin, the only thing going for you in that game is the weather down there lets you fight during the winter of 40 till spring of 41.

Wish I had a partner to play CWIE2 again with so we could explore this. Doing it solo leaves out the element of surprise.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

So since we got all the none-sense out of the way what does that leave us for a Med First Strategy?

We know that Hitler would not let go of Russia in 1941 right? We also know that Hitler was not interested really in invading England, personally, and when Goering 'let him down and lost prestige' with Hitler by loosing the Battle of Britain. And we know that Hitler would not invade Spain. So what or where does that leave this question?

The only possibility that I can see is that as Hitler builds up for Russia in 1941, puts as much pressure as he can on Franco (and we know that fails anyway), is faced with the Italian debacles in Greece and NA and then diverts some of his resources away from Barbarossa, or puts off Barbarossa till 1942, maybe putting a Panzer Corps and an Infantry Corps into the Med. I don't know if that would be enough, nor if they could ship that much to NA, they would still have to divert some air assets to both the Med and to France, since I am sure the British would not be sitting on their buttocks while Hitler was doing this. The CW would send as much as they could around the horn to NA. Meanwhile this would free up Russia to put pressure on either Rumanian, Hungary and or Finland.

Again, I go back to the gaming aspect. I have sort of done this in CWIE2. But I did not postpone Barbarossa, I did or have siphoned off several Mech and Inf units for the Med, but it's hard to take out the CW completely in NA, it's possible but your supply line is stretch so thin, the only thing going for you in that game is the weather down there lets you fight during the winter of 40 till spring of 41.

Wish I had a partner to play CWIE2 again with so we could explore this. Doing it solo leaves out the element of surprise.

warspite1

Personally.in order to explore such an interesting scenario, I was happy to suspend disbelief and go with an attack on Spain and a postponement of Barbarossa. The only thing I thought necessary was to add as much realism into the scenario in terms of timescales and actions taken by the various parties. Unfortunately we got presented with a scenario that can at best be described as fantasy as sensible time frames were thrown out the window and historical characters all forgot themselves, changed personality and changed nationalty to German.

[Aurelian]

IIRC, the Germans preferred one rail line per army.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not to mention that the different rail lines were probably different gauges. Plus the rail likes in France to Spain were distinct and different gauges.

warspite1

The different gauges between France and Spain has been mentioned. Although they mention four separate companies owning the 'network' there is no mention at all that the gauges were different within Spain. I'm sure that would have been raised - believe me, this is a seriously impressive book.

Iberian gauge (Spanish: ancho ibérico, trocha ibérica, Portuguese: bitola ibérica) is a track gauge of 1,668 mm (5 ft 5 21⁄32 in), most extensively used by the railways of Spain and Portugal. This is the second-widest gauge in regular use anywhere in the world. The Indian gauge, 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm), is 8 mm (5⁄16 in) wider.

As finally established in 1955,[1] the Iberian gauge is a compromise between the similar, but slightly different, gauges adopted as respective national standards in Spain and Portugal in the mid-19th century. The main railway networks of Spain were initially constructed to a 1,672 mm (5 ft 5 13⁄16 in) gauge of six Castilian feet. Those of Portugal were instead built to a 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) and later railways to a 1,664 mm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in) gauge of five Portuguese feet – close enough to allow interoperability with Spanish railways.

warspite1

Thanks. So yes, the route required by the Germans for Felix looks like six Castillian feet. Standard gauge wasn’t around in 1940, and the other gauges were located outside of the route required by Felix. In an attack on Spain these lines may or may not have come into play.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You refuse to read what I write or you do read it and simply ignore it. Shame on you.

No. You just don't like my responses.

warspite1

It is not a question of 'liking' your responses. I don't like your entire approach to this debate which is basically this:

1.
You believe your scenario would have worked. You said you "know" this because it’s been "war gamed" and so that somehow proves it. Nothing else is required. This belief that a war game somehow provides that degree of proof of what would have been, was taken to the heights of absurdity when you confidently stated “And, all [the Germans] have to do is get to Madrid, whereupon Spain will surrender and her forces will dissolve”. Why did you state that? Well because it was in the rules of a war game…….

I have sought to counter a number of your ideas. I've done this where possible using historical examples, quotes, stats and military studies in order to support what I’ve said. In the example above when I commented on what I thought was more likely and that the Spanish would not simply surrender because the capital was occupied you again confidently stated as fact that “Every other European country did the exact same thing”. This of course is rubbish and numerous examples were given to evidence why it was rubbish. But you didn’t even think it necessary to check the facts before boldly making such an obviously wrong statement.

2.
You believe that writing one liners in which you essentially say "I am right" is sufficient. You don’t put any effort into supporting your case. You confidently state that “whatever force the Germans put into Spain… one rail line will be far more than sufficient to supply it” and “Now, how many trains can be pushed down a single line in a day? Surely at least 24….”. Unusually in this case you did actually attempt to provide some evidence in support of your “fact”. Unfortunately the data you provided referred to US railroads and not specific to Spain. The supporting data was therefore essentially useless as the conclusion you drew bears no relationship to reality.

I believe that putting some effort into the debate and actually trying to make a case is important. I have sought out information about railroads in Spain itself in 1940 and so relevant to the debate. The figures I’ve quoted in support of my counter proposal (which come from the Germans own calculations while making preparations for Felix) show that what the Spanish rail system could carry was a mere fraction of what you believe, and indeed what was required.

3.
You believe that when quoting the few historical details you have, it doesn't weaken your case that about 80% of them have actually been wrong. I mean seriously, how can you opine on a “what-if” if you don’t understand about the events involved? I am not going to repeat the long list of factual errors you have made, but would comment upon one example. You seek to make a case for what would happen post the fall of France. As part of that you need to make assumptions for how the British would react to any moves. In order to do this it is only expected that you would have at least some knowledge of the European war Sept 1939-June 1940. If you don’t understand what actually happened, then how can you seek to opine on what may have happened in any counterfactual? You are making a case for what the British would or wouldn’t do and gave this example: “After they miraculously rescued the BEF from Dunkirk, they didn't insert it right back into France further West in a misguided attempt to save France. Neither would they be inserting it into Spain”. I mean seriously? You are giving your opinion on what the British would/wouldn’t have done based on a 100% factually inaccurate statement. That you are “authoritatively” commenting on this and yet had never even heard of the second BEF, let alone what it did, is pretty shocking.

Whereas I believe that knowing what happened when and why is kind of important. At the very least it gives a solid base line for exploring what may have happened. Like for example when looking at the way Mussolini was likely to behave faced with the circumstances of your scenario. I have given numerous examples to show Mussolini’s actual thoughts, Badoglio’s actual mind set, Italian actual war aims, and I’ve given historical examples, all to support what I believe is more likely to have happened. It would be nice if you made the same effort.

So as you can see, it has nothing to do with not 'liking' your responses. I just find them of pretty limited value because you make little effort to read, understand and properly comment on what I write (no, pithy one liners in which you simply repeat what you said before isn't having a constructive debate), you make no effort to support your view but simply rely on a sorely misplaced belief that you are always right and you have made no effort to actually study the subject matter (your arguments and comments have not moved one jot since the debate started).

[RangerJoe]

Warspite1, maybe the problem with Curtis Lemay's lack of research is that he is not allowed to access it? Maybe he hasn't earned that privilege? I know that my brother did play a game by mail against a prison inmate - he did not understand the address, so he found out that CB 2 meant Cell Block 2!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Warspite1, maybe the problem with Curtis Lemay's lack of research is that he is not allowed to access it? Maybe he hasn't earned that privilege? I know that my brother did play a game by mail against a prison inmate - he did not understand the address, so he found out that CB 2 meant Cell Block 2!

warspite1

Ugh?

[Zorch]

He's dead, Jim.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Warspite1, maybe the problem with Curtis Lemay's lack of research is that he is not allowed to access it? Maybe he hasn't earned that privilege? I know that my brother did play a game by mail against a prison inmate - he did not understand the address, so he found out that CB 2 meant Cell Block 2!

warspite1

Ugh?

Maybe he is limited in his library access and what the library has available. Maybe he is restricted to certain sites and can't do on-line research. So maybe that is the reason why he only references commercial war games as his definitive research.

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Personally.in order to explore such an interesting scenario, I was happy to suspend disbelief and go with an attack on Spain and a postponement of Barbarossa. The only thing I thought necessary was to add as much realism into the scenario in terms of timescales and actions taken by the various parties. Unfortunately we got presented with a scenario that can at best be described as fantasy as sensible time frames were thrown out the window and historical characters all forgot themselves, changed personality and changed nationalty to German.

Okay if we suspend disbelief and the OKW and Hitler agreed to postpone Barbarossa, then would not Sealion be an option? Maybe not because it's not part of the Med.? I am still struggling to come to grips with a German invasion of Spain. My understanding is that Franco was close to being an Axis Allied partner. But going with this, I suppose if the Germans and Hitler had lost patience with Franco and had decided to invade Spain.

What we do know is that Franco refused the pressure. Logically, England would seemed to be the next target and not Spain. But I am still having trouble suspending my disbelief that Hitler would think logically or sanely and invade Spain or England.

So I am stumped here...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Personally.in order to explore such an interesting scenario, I was happy to suspend disbelief and go with an attack on Spain and a postponement of Barbarossa. The only thing I thought necessary was to add as much realism into the scenario in terms of timescales and actions taken by the various parties. Unfortunately we got presented with a scenario that can at best be described as fantasy as sensible time frames were thrown out the window and historical characters all forgot themselves, changed personality and changed nationalty to German.

Okay if we suspend disbelief and the OKW and Hitler agreed to postpone Barbarossa, then would not Sealion be an option? Maybe not because it's not part of the Med.? I am still struggling to come to grips with a German invasion of Spain. My understanding is that Franco was close to being an Axis Allied partner. But going with this, I suppose if the Germans and Hitler had lost patience with Franco and had decided to invade Spain.

What we do know is that Franco refused the pressure. Logically, England would seemed to be the next target and not Spain. But I am still having trouble suspending my disbelief that Hitler would think logically or sanely and invade Spain or England.

So I am stumped here...

warspite1

Well Hitler didn't attack Spain. Despite the growing list of reasons why he could have (post 771), the fact was Hitler still refused to invade Spain. But as said at the outset, in even agreeing to explore this Med first strategy there are two things that we either go with or we don't.

We either suspend disbelief and take it that Hitler DOES postpone Barbarossa for 12 months in order to go for the Med... or we don't. If we can't go down that route then there is no point debating. Like you I don't see a scenario in which its possible, but I took part in this debate because I thought it would be fun to run through all the possibilities with like minded-World War II obsessed freaks![:)]

Sadly that is not what has happened. If I had time I would go through every post - but haven't got the time. But I would like to do so just to confirm something. I actually don't believe Curtis Lemay has 'conceded' a single thing in this whole debate. I think the closest he came was stating that maybe Spain wouldn't surrender the moment the capital was occupied - but only because it doesn't matter anyway as the Spanish would soon be finished off.

I believe on everything else its simply I'm right, I'm right, I'm right. I wonder what the response will be to his railway calculations being blown apart?

[RangerJoe]

Things would have to be started with Franco before the French collapse, maybe even before the attack in the West. But staff planning should have been done for all options with variations. This would include Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy entering the war, and so on. Even if it was just low level planning without specific divisions such as: Infantry division X is allocated here, Panzer regiment Y is allocated here and attacks along this route, the Luftwaffe needs to establish initial air superiority over this part of the coast, . . .

So as far as Italy entering the war, if the Italians were not utilizing their air transports, maybe 300 of the 500 could be used to support any air landing in Southern England.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I was talking about the map you originally showed. But the Wiki map serves just as well. It doesn't matter what is on that map. The Germans didn't travel to the Greco-Albanian border according to what you presented. But I am not going to waste any more time on this.

So I provide a military study that sets out the problems for the Greeks facing the Italians (if Salonika is taken). This is a study written by professionals in the US military.

You provide a game map and a map from Wiki that you say PROVES that Athens was a viable supply point for those Greek troops in the northeast.

I have no idea where you are coming from and I have nothing more to add on this, other than you've done yourself no favours whatsoever.

The Wiki map clearly showed the Germans moving across the spine of the Greek mountains. That means the Greek supply columns could have done so as well.

Here's another map from another source showing a little more detail. Clearly, the Italians dealt with the Greeks in the area your talking about. So the Germans had no need to go there.

Also, note the text at the top and how it describes the German armor getting into the rear of the British lines via "impassible" terrain!

The arrows on maps such as this should not be read as troops moving in single file. They are symbolic of the movement of fronts. All of Greece would have been fought over, including the hills.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There would still be far more than an army group staring at them across the Channel.

This is totally false. The Germans barely had enough transports for two divisions. Your Army Group Fantasy moving across the channel is absurd on so many levels.

These kinds of posts from you Bob (aka Curtis) makes you look like a fool and that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Then you have other posts that are twisting what others write and putting words that they did not say into their mouths, those kind of posts give you even less credit.

Talk about twisting someone's words!! I've never suggested that a channel crossing even be attempted.

The statement was totally true. The point was that sending forces into Spain did not reduce the threat to the Channel one bit. The force available was far in excess of what would be needed for a channel crossing.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the Germans attacked Spain, there would be a very small frontage. Maqquis would be attacking their supply lines, including those in France.

Only initially, and that would occur under strategic surprise.

Why would Italy even garrison Spain? They would get nothing from that! No glory, only dead bodies.

The whole point of taking Gibraltar was for Italy's benefit. Closing the eastern med is definitely in her interests. Allowing it to fall back to the British would be against those interests.

The Germans attacked along the river valleys because that is where the good roads are. The good roads are not going over Hills then through the Dales. Good roads are on the flat lands. The hills are better defensive terrain, often with trees, that is not good for tanks. Anti-tank guns are not needed against tanks, even turpentine will work.

All rubbish as I just posted. Those lines on the map represent the movements of FRONTS!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

BTW: A question for Curtis Lemay and Zovs. In the SPI game, was there any special rules/requirements around the rail bridge at Irun?

Could you remind me where/what country Irun is in?

warspite1

Irun is in Spain. The reason I mentioned it is that Curtis Lemay believes that because his scenario has been "war gamed" it proves it would have worked.

Clearly to make a case like that, any game would need to be incredibly detailed. Which is why I assumed there must have been mention of Irun in the game. Given the lack of rail lines, the rail bridge at Irun was of massive importance to the Germans. Firstly, the Germans were very concerned about it as they weren't sure it was going to hold up due to the state of repair. But secondly, they were so worried about it being bombed that they provided numerous AA batteries and coastal batteries (they feared naval bombardment as the line is on the coast) to help with its defence.

Obviously Curtis Lemay is making the point that this is a very realistic game and so I am assuming the British player can bomb the line and the Royal Navy can shell the line? I am assuming the Germans need to keep 3 batteries of AA and an engineer unit at the bridge at all times? Presumably the attack on Spain can't start until the coastal batteries are in place?

Like in any campaign, bridges and rail lines will have to be repaired. Note that where rail bridges are down, truck routes can bypass them temporarily. Supplies come off before the bridge, trucked to the other side, and go back on after it. It changes how long it takes to get the supplies there, but not the amount of supplies that are ultimately delivered.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes, its obvious to anyone that one would need both sides of the Straits to truly be able to traverse from the Med to the Atlantic without fear of mines, coastal batteries, aircraft etc. That is why - despite the unsubstantiated verbiage that Curtis Lemay comes out with, Hitler was going to order an armoured and motorised division into Spanish Morocco - and why there would always need to be a German garrison of some description there.

I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I was talking about the map you originally showed. But the Wiki map serves just as well. It doesn't matter what is on that map. The Germans didn't travel to the Greco-Albanian border according to what you presented. But I am not going to waste any more time on this.

So I provide a military study that sets out the problems for the Greeks facing the Italians (if Salonika is taken). This is a study written by professionals in the US military.

You provide a game map and a map from Wiki that you say PROVES that Athens was a viable supply point for those Greek troops in the northeast.

I have no idea where you are coming from and I have nothing more to add on this, other than you've done yourself no favours whatsoever.

The Wiki map clearly showed the Germans moving across the spine of the Greek mountains. That means the Greek supply columns could have done so as well.

Here's another map from another source showing a little more detail. Clearly, the Italians dealt with the Greeks in the area your talking about. So the Germans had no need to go there.

Also, note the text at the top and how it describes the German armor getting into the rear of the British lines via "impassible" terrain!

The arrows on maps such as this should not be read as troops moving in single file. They are symbolic of the movement of fronts. All of Greece would have been fought over, including the hills.

warspite1

Once again I will ignore the nonsense about fighting on hills. I still haven't said the Germans couldn't do that and you still answer my posts as though I have. Very poor form.

But back to what we were talking about and...... once again, It appears we are talking about two entirely different things - or at least two completely different parts of Greece - or in this case Yugoslavia! Unbelievable. What the hell has the Germans entering the Monastir Gap from the north got to do with what we have been talking about???? When, in the previous posts, did Yugoslavia come up in connection with this map???? This is happening too often. The argument was about the provision of an entire Greek army on the Albanian front. You present a map that shows the Germans moving into positions from the south - troops that by the time they get into that position, would be supplied from the north - possibly from Bulgaria via Salonika.

But you choose, for absolutely no apparent reason, to bring Yugoslavia into it?!?!?!? Why? What relevance does this have - other than a pathological desire not to be seen to be wrong.

As said, I have a choice between you and your wiki/game maps vs a US Military study. I'll stick with the professionals if its all the same.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The whole point of taking Gibraltar was for Italy's benefit. Closing the eastern med is definitely in her interests.

warspite1

Have you ever read anything Admiral Raeder ever said? You think Raeder was being altruistic in wanting to take Gibraltar. Yes there would be a knock-on benefit to Italy, but his thinking was entirely in terms of what he thought best for Germany. Gibraltar and/or Spanish bases would be home for u-boats and provide shelter for surface raiders.

To suggest "the whole point of taking Gibraltar was for Italy's benefit" is just so wrong.

BTW you may want to re-check your compass [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The Italians will be needed to help garrison Spain. Also, they need to be warned that a risky strike at the Pyramids from Libya is unnecessary.

warspite1

And there you have it. Your debating style in a nutshell. You've been told, at great length, why it is highly unlikely Mussolini would agree to any such thing. You've been provided with quotes by the key players and historical examples.

Your response?

Curtis Lemay: I am ignoring you, I am going to repeat the same thing I've been churning out for pages - and I'm not going to provide a scrap of evidence in support of my position or even give you the courtesy of why I believe your evidence is wrong. But then I don't have to, I'm Curtis Lemay and I'm always right.

You're just repeating the same things over and over again. Why should I do any differently.

I repeat, different circumstances produce different results. Germany adopting a Med Strategy is a very different circumstance.