The question to ask about The Italians

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Could you imagine driving a vehicle in the mountains during freezing rain?

Or even walking some hills in that type of weather? Much less running them? Or trying to attack up these hills in full field gear? Yes, under fire!

warspite1

The German planning staff for Felix mentions this - and I've written what they've said. Yes, the need for the troops to negotiate 1,200kms - some of which is in high mountain passes, was a serious concern to the Germans whose troops had to take everything with them as there was no possibility of living off the land. Moreover these twisting, narrow passes were hardly ideal for armour. And this is for a Spain friendly scenario!!

But what we have here instead is a war with Spain. And as Lemay has admitted himself, when a country is attacked (as opposed to being the attacker) then the mindset is different.

None of us know how the Spanish will fight, but in a counterfactual one simply looks at what evidence there is and makes the best assumption they believe to be realistic.

Of course the Germans will conquer Spain, but what the comments of the professionals in the Germany army make abundantly and crystal clear, is that if the Spanish do offer any kind of determined resistance (and the circumstances of the German betrayal suggest they will) then this is not going to be a 'blitzkrieg' that Lemay suggests.

Lemay can harp on all he wants about the size and state of the Spanish army. But the fact is that by the Germans own calculations, even a Spain friendly scenario - and with everything going smoothly - would mean this operation taking almost as long it took the Germans to beat France.

The Germans have a narrow front to attack from with no diversion of Spanish force elsewhere. Everything would depend on how long the Spanish could hold the Germans up in the hills and mountains along the border, how much damage they could do to the rail line and roads (destroying bridges and collapsing tunnels) and thus give Spain time to mobilise fully. Much too depends on the response from the British. Do they know how vulnerable the German supply line is in on the border?

Just looking at the sheer volume of artillery regiments the Germans needed to employ for Gibraltar, just looking at the massive quantities of shells they felt were necessary to reduce the rock (in addition to the 800 aircraft for Gibraltar alone) - these will need to be transported from the French border to southern Spain once a route has been cleared. One can expect the rail lines (such good that they were) to have been comprehensively destroyed, roads through mountains blocked, bridges brought down and tunnels collapsed.

Some blitzkrieg....

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Why does it matter about what SPI said back in the 1970s? They're gone State of the art has moved forward over the decades. From what I understand with the game Warplan, taking the capital is not enough.

warspite1

Don't be ridiculous Aurelian. EVERY European country surrendered when the capital was occupied. Curtis Lemay has said so. And if you don't believe him, then have a look at Rule 15(b). All the proof you need. End of Discussion [:)].

Back in the real world....

Yes, a lot of games don't set such an arbitrary rule for surrender. As an example in World In Flames, as a rule, a player needs to take out the production centres - in the case of Spain that would be Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid.

But then I wouldn't seek to base any counterfactual on a rule in any wargame alone. Not unreasonably, I would want to see the thinking behind the rule at the very least.

Drat. Forgot about that rule.. But to return to reality. Let's say that the Axis invade Spain. Just what would stop the British from taking the Canaries if they felt it necessary?

And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Felix called for not two army groups, or even two armies, but two corps.

And as mentioned in the article linked above, Franco expected to lose the Canary islands and other overseas possessions if Gibraltar was taken.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, a lot of games don't set such an arbitrary rule for surrender. As an example in World In Flames, as a rule, a player needs to take out the production centres - in the case of Spain that would be Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid.

I would like to point out that Spain fights on from overseas in MWIF even after mainland Spain has fallen. No 'Vichy' Spain here. The Canaries makes for good Allied bases during the struggle in the Atlantic. And Spanish Morocco is nice to base Allied forces for support of Gibraltar. Or, if Gibraltar falls to Axis, annoy the Axis forces trying to use Gibraltar as a base.

[Zovs]

Sorry my comments about the rules were suppose to be done in jest.

I think that in the context of discussing Med. Front strategy, using war games as a secondary tool is still valid (at least from my perspective). I own the computerized version of both War in Europe (which implements both the 1976 SPI rules, the 1999 rules and the 2005 implementation of further rules), and MWiF. I also own WarPlan and the Strategic Command series. So I like seeing how each of these deals with specific issues and just find it interesting how these various games have implemented various rules regarding alt history to one extent or another.

But I agree with what and where Warspite is going with this discussion, i.e. using historical documents and professional military staff studies. I am under no illusion that war game designers (whether they are from the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's) have to make things fit into whatever design and or physical limits they are facing.

So I guess my throwing in some war game stuff was just to throw in some other ideas for discussion.

As far as war games I think I am still searching for one that can somehow combine elements of SPI's War in Europe, ADG's World in Flames and GDW's The Europa series into one big massive global strategic with operational elements that is pretty realistic and fun to play. The 'Holy Grail' if you will.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Sorry my comments about the rules were suppose to be done in jest.

I think that in the context of discussing Med. Front strategy, using war games as a secondary tool is still valid (at least from my perspective). I own the computerized version of both War in Europe (which implements both the 1976 SPI rules, the 1999 rules and the 2005 implementation of further rules), and MWiF. I also own WarPlan and the Strategic Command series. So I like seeing how each of these deals with specific issues and just find it interesting how these various games have implemented various rules regarding alt history to one extent or another.

But I agree with what and where Warspite is going with this discussion, i.e. using historical documents and professional military staff studies. I am under no illusion that war game designers (whether they are from the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's) have to make things fit into whatever design and or physical limits they are facing.

So I guess my throwing in some war game stuff was just to throw in some other ideas for discussion.

As far as war games I think I am still searching for one that can somehow combine elements of SPI's War in Europe, ADG's World in Flames and GDW's The Europa series into one big massive global strategic with operational elements that is pretty realistic and fun to play. The 'Holy Grail' if you will.

So what would you think of attacking up those hills? [:D] Or even running them with full gear? [:D] How about just walking up and down them at a good pace? [:D] Does the movie Stripes bring back fond memories? [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Drat. Forgot about that rule.. But to return to reality. Let's say that the Axis invade Spain. Just what would stop the British from taking the Canaries if they felt it necessary?

warspite1

Quite. The British had plans in place to seize the Canaries in the event that Spain allied to Germany. It was that important.

In fact I think it was so important that the British would seize them regardless - even in the massively unlikely event that Germany attacked Spain and Spain wouldn't allow Britain to use the islands. The loss of Gibraltar wouldn't be great for the British - having the Canaries (and maybe the Azores) occupied by the Germans would be pretty disastrous.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

And as mentioned in the article linked above, Franco expected to lose the Canary islands and other overseas possessions if Gibraltar was taken.

warspite1

One of the reasons Franco wouldn't do a deal with Hitler was that Hitler actually expected Spain to give them one of the Canary Islands in return...... Astonishing isn't it?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, a lot of games don't set such an arbitrary rule for surrender. As an example in World In Flames, as a rule, a player needs to take out the production centres - in the case of Spain that would be Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid.

I would like to point out that Spain fights on from overseas in MWIF even after mainland Spain has fallen. No 'Vichy' Spain here. The Canaries makes for good Allied bases during the struggle in the Atlantic. And Spanish Morocco is nice to base Allied forces for support of Gibraltar. Or, if Gibraltar falls to Axis, annoy the Axis forces trying to use Gibraltar as a base.

warspite1

Exactly, and Hitler - forever worrying about his flanks - was mindful of this. This is why he expected an armoured and motorised division to occupy Spanish Morocco at least initially.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Sorry my comments about the rules were suppose to be done in jest.

I think that in the context of discussing Med. Front strategy, using war games as a secondary tool is still valid (at least from my perspective). I own the computerized version of both War in Europe (which implements both the 1976 SPI rules, the 1999 rules and the 2005 implementation of further rules), and MWiF. I also own WarPlan and the Strategic Command series. So I like seeing how each of these deals with specific issues and just find it interesting how these various games have implemented various rules regarding alt history to one extent or another.

But I agree with what and where Warspite is going with this discussion, i.e. using historical documents and professional military staff studies. I am under no illusion that war game designers (whether they are from the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's) have to make things fit into whatever design and or physical limits they are facing.

So I guess my throwing in some war game stuff was just to throw in some other ideas for discussion.

As far as war games I think I am still searching for one that can somehow combine elements of SPI's War in Europe, ADG's World in Flames and GDW's The Europa series into one big massive global strategic with operational elements that is pretty realistic and fun to play. The 'Holy Grail' if you will.

warspite1

Hi Zovs - sorry that flew right over my head.

What I want to be clear about is that there is no game bashing from me. Games are games and we like them and accept them - or we don't.

I wouldn't expect any game to be able to tell me what would have happened in WWII from a counterfactual point of view and that is not a criticism.

Imagine the war stopped in October 1939. Chamberlain and Daladier decided that they made a mistake, and in a round of mutual back slapping and congratulation, Hitler decided that he would be happy for Germans to live within Germany's own borders.

Right, now game makers make "What-if" games based on what could have happened if peace didn't break out.

How many games:

- do you think we see the Germans landing in Narvik, Trondheim and Bergen without interception by the RN?

- do you think would allows a defeat of France in six weeks?

- do you think would see Germany in the suburbs of Moscow by December 1941 and the Soviets in Berlin three and a half years later?

- do you think would see Japan taking the PI, Malaya, Singapore, Burma, the NEI in 6 months?

War games can be great fun, they can be useful as a guide - but a tool that can be relied upon to model what-ifs? Don't make me laugh...

[Zovs]

No worries and agree.

[Piteas]

A curious story: 007 in Spain 1940

On the other hand, my opinion on everything commented so far can be summed up in that Spain could be "conquered" in one or two months, but it would be another Yugoslavia, twice as large, more mountainous and with English troops inside fervently supported by the population, while the Germans suffered small attacks everywhere. A aryan hell.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Piteas

A curious story: 007 in Spain 1940

On the other hand, my opinion on everything commented so far can be summed up in that Spain could be "conquered" in one or two months, but it would be another Yugoslavia, twice as large, more mountainous and with English troops inside fervently supported by the population, while the Germans suffered small attacks everywhere. A aryan hell.

warspite1

I think given the size of the country, a month seems a little light. The Germans allowed three days for defeating Gibraltar and just over a month for the whole operation. So if just getting to Southern Spain in a Spain-friendly scenario took that long, then I think conquering Spain would be a minimum of 8-weeks (and that means barely any resistance and the longest time is taken in getting troops to all four corners of the country).

A maximum? The great unknown and would depend on just how hard the Spanish fought and whether they got lucky. Even with luck its probably difficult to see them lasting more than 3 months at the outside. But much would depend on small groups holding vital passes and successfully, sabotaging communication links.

The ability to stall the Germans would then have two effects - to give time to mobilise as many troops as possible and to allow for the onset of winter. Another great unknown is what would the British could provide by way of practical assistance but supplies of arms and ammunition delivered by the navy, naval gunfire support - particularly of communication links, and bombing raids too would be possible.

Ultimately its all about killing Germans and costing them machines and hardware. This plan (for Germany) depends on suppressing Spain and taking out Gibraltar. But the Germans may also have to bolster Libya and possibly come to the Italians rescue in the Balkans, all before another major undertaking in Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa.....

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Drat. Forgot about that rule.. But to return to reality. Let's say that the Axis invade Spain. Just what would stop the British from taking the Canaries if they felt it necessary?

warspite1

Quite. The British had plans in place to seize the Canaries in the event that Spain allied to Germany. It was that important.

In fact I think it was so important that the British would seize them regardless - even in the massively unlikely event that Germany attacked Spain and Spain wouldn't allow Britain to use the islands. The loss of Gibraltar wouldn't be great for the British - having the Canaries (and maybe the Azores) occupied by the Germans would be pretty disastrous.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

And as mentioned in the article linked above, Franco expected to lose the Canary islands and other overseas possessions if Gibraltar was taken.

warspite1

One of the reasons Franco wouldn't do a deal with Hitler was that Hitler actually expected Spain to give them one of the Canary Islands in return...... Astonishing isn't it?

Yes it is. I submit that even if Germany took the Canary Islands, holding on to them would be all but impossible.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Drat. Forgot about that rule.. But to return to reality. Let's say that the Axis invade Spain. Just what would stop the British from taking the Canaries if they felt it necessary?

warspite1

Quite. The British had plans in place to seize the Canaries in the event that Spain allied to Germany. It was that important.

In fact I think it was so important that the British would seize them regardless - even in the massively unlikely event that Germany attacked Spain and Spain wouldn't allow Britain to use the islands. The loss of Gibraltar wouldn't be great for the British - having the Canaries (and maybe the Azores) occupied by the Germans would be pretty disastrous.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

And as mentioned in the article linked above, Franco expected to lose the Canary islands and other overseas possessions if Gibraltar was taken.

warspite1

One of the reasons Franco wouldn't do a deal with Hitler was that Hitler actually expected Spain to give them one of the Canary Islands in return...... Astonishing isn't it?

Yes it is. I submit that even if Germany took the Canary Islands, holding on to them would be all but impossible.

warspite1

Assuming a Spain friendly scenario they had a plan to bring coastal batteries to the islands and I guess air support could be flown in from Spanish Sahara? I think that much would depend on who had the energy to get things done - and that was so often the Germans. The Germans would certainly be at a disadvantage, but first mover advantage may have been key.

That said, in a Spain unfriendly scenario (as per here) then I think it would be more difficult for the Germans to gain the islands in the first place, let alone hold onto them, which I agree, would be very, very difficult with both a hostile local population and a concerted effort to take them back.

[RangerJoe]

Not to mention the aid that might be coming from the Americas. Many of the Republicans fled to Latin America, I think even Brazil. Then there could be assistance from the United States. Don't forget all of the supplies from South America that went to Germany by way of Spain.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Not to mention the aid that might be coming from the Americas. Many of the Republicans fled to Latin America, I think even Brazil. Then there could be assistance from the United States. Don't forget all of the supplies from South America that went to Germany by way of Spain.

warspite1

Indeed, the influence of the US/Britain on Franco's thinking was considerable. The US were responsible for keeping Spain from famine, and fed them oil on a monthly basis. Franco knows that he is reliant upon the US - as much as I'm sure he hated the fact.

But that being the case, Britain and the US can promise things to Spain in future - provided she picks the right side and does the right thing. Much the same conversations were had with Vichy "Listen pal, you really don't want to make an enemy of the US if you want us to be BFF after we've won" (I paraphrase of course [:)] - but that was the gist of the comment).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

When the Brenner pass was snowed in, the German used the Swiss rail lines. [8|]

Again, the Brenner pass was mountain - not hills.

The Alps are ALPINE? When did that happen! [X(]

Spain has the second highest mountains in Europe, that would also rate as ALPINE!

Good luck holding Spain or Turkey just sitting in Alpine hexes. They are both so full of hills and clear terrain that such a defense could be easily bypassed - & mopped up later by alpine troops.

France gave up to retain the empire - at least, that is what was attempted.

What threat was Germany to France's empire? If the reason for Vichy was not to create an enclave in France that the Germans stayed out of, why would Germany agree to stay out of Vichy France?????

Spain did not go to war, it was honourable to assist the poor unfortunates fleeing Nazi oppression and death camps. Spain did not have to go to war. If you think that the Republicans in Spain are so nice, then you should read about why the Spanish Civil War occurred.

The French fought. The Spanish didn't. The honor trophy goes to France.

Remember, steep grades are a road obstacle. So are sharp curves. Combine to two and it is worse. Hill or mountains, it makes no difference.

Yugoslavia. Greece. Norway.

There would have been no Med strategy until Italy came in.

Plans for a Med Strategy would be made before then, though. Italy entering the war was foreseeable.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Take North Africa: The distance from Tripoli to El Alamein was 1781 km. Axis truck convoys made the entire journey and back. Distance from San Sebastian to Gibraltar was 1130 km. So, the entire country is within road supply range if necessary.

This response is simply confused and rambling (not just this post but all posts concerning Spain).

You've just described your posts. Mine are concise. Take the above part about supply by road: The Germans don't even need the rail lines to get supply everywhere in Spain.

I've asked you what you were talking about and you've come up with this. Despite the disingenuous answers above, yes you have said the Germans have until 1942 - "How long will it take? They have till 1942". And you also said "The Germans will be in a rush to get things done".

You seem to have confused yourself and give the usual one line answers in response - just minimal effort every time. Well I don't have the time to keep doing your job and trying to work out what you are talking about, when you can't even be bothered to be clear yourself.

Nothing unclear about that. Of course they want the campaign done as soon as it can be. But that doesn't imply any timeframe. The Pharaoh wants his pyramid as soon as possible - but it still takes 20 years to build.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What?

How many ways can you interpret the quote from the US military study????

We have no way of knowing just how you've taken it out of context. But, based upon the maps I've posted, it is clear that any claim that there is no path from Athens to the Albanian border except via Salonika if false. A blind man can see it - just not you.

How many ways can you interpret what the German supply officers have said????

]

Again, that was under a friendly Spain. That limited what the Germans could do. A campaign in Spain allows rail repair.

The comment re Piteas and UP844 was about as childish as it gets. No, you don't DEFER to these gentlemen because of their nationality, but you can seek to engage with them to understand more about their views which, given their nationality MAY prove of interest to the debate. But apparently that thought never occurred to you - but then it wouldn't would it? You are Curtis Lemay and you are always right and neither believed what you were saying to be correct.

You seem to think I should defer to anyone Spanish about Spain and anyone Italian about Italy. That is about a childish as it gets.

Yep, those designers thoughts may be material to the discussion. But you have not a single clue as to their thinking behind rule '15(b)'. If I am wrong please provide their designers notes confirming their reasoning for the capital rule. If you don't know this then you are putting absolute faith in something you don't even understand. How can you think that is sensible?

I'm not putting absolute faith in them. Just more faith than in the anyone on this board.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

When the Brenner pass was snowed in, the German used the Swiss rail lines. [8|]

Again, the Brenner pass was mountain - not hills.

So? Hills can be snowed in, so can level ground. Have you ever experienced snow? Freezing rain?

The Alps are ALPINE? When did that happen! [X(]

Spain has the second highest mountains in Europe, that would also rate as ALPINE!

Good luck holding Spain or Turkey just sitting in Alpine hexes. They are both so full of hills and clear terrain that such a defense could be easily bypassed - & mopped up later by alpine troops.

You don't just sit and hold Alpine hexes, you utilize them for bases of operations, a safe place to retreat to, then operate from the bases there.

France gave up to retain the empire - at least, that is what was attempted.

What threat was Germany to France's empire? If the reason for Vichy was not to create an enclave in France that the Germans stayed out of, why would Germany agree to stay out of Vichy France?????

So they did not have to garrison the land yet still they could get resources from it.

Spain did not go to war, it was honourable to assist the poor unfortunates fleeing Nazi oppression and death camps. Spain did not have to go to war. If you think that the Republicans in Spain are so nice, then you should read about why the Spanish Civil War occurred.

The French fought. The Spanish didn't. The honor trophy goes to France.

The French quit on their Allies, that is not honourable. DHC, do you understand anything like that? [8|]

Remember, steep grades are a road obstacle. So are sharp curves. Combine to two and it is worse. Hill or mountains, it makes no difference.

Yugoslavia. Greece. Norway.

Gallipoli, the Italian campaign with the Bernhardt line which had, among others, Monte la Defensa with the battles along the Sangro river, the Gustav Line with Monte Cassino not to mention the Apennine mountains. Have you ever heard or even read about these places and battles?

The high ground controls the low ground.

There would have been no Med strategy until Italy came in.

Plans for a Med Strategy would be made before then, though. Italy entering the war was foreseeable.

Show me where the Germans knew or even wanted the Italians to come into the war, show me the planning that the Germans did with the Italians prior to Italy entering the war. Not a wargame, but historical documents. Show me the planning where Germany thought that Italy entering the war allied with Germany was beneficial. No wargames, historical documents.

BTW, have you had your pharmaceuticals adjusted lately?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What have you got wrong? Listen. I am tired of doing all the work around here. You believe you have the knowledge to be able to talk about Vichy? Well prove it. Stop asking stupid questions and set out your ideas. Here's an idea! How about you do some work and set out the circumstances of how a 'Vichy' Spain comes about? Do you think you can manage that? This isn't rocket science. You have someone stating that a 'Vichy' Spain is not going to happen. But you say it will. So, make your case. And no, making your case isn't a series of pithy one-liners, it's a reasoned, well thought out article to explain what you believe would happen to make a 'Vichy' Spain scenario possible. You can't simply say "Well France had one so I think Spain will get one too so there". That is not a reasoned argument. That is just you saying "I'm right".

Clearly, a feature of Vichy France was no German forces interior to Vichy France. If that wasn't the point of Vichy France, then why would the Germans ever have agreed to it?

I've given clear reasons why Franco would want a deal with the Germans: The Allies aren't going to expel the Germans and Italians from Spain then reestablish a fascist state after the war. Franco has no real choice but to make a deal. And, since all the Germans really want is Gibraltar, why would he be so resistant?

So you think the British will sit there, allow Spain to be conquered and then, only when Gibraltar is attacked, will they make their move in the Canaries???? You need to think more about what you are saying - and the comment about Crete was a hoot.

I don't think Franco will agree to British possession of their colonies any more than the French allowed them into FNA. They will expect, as the French did, for them to lodge themselves on the mainland - where the war is. If they violate that, Spain would be a real danger to become an Axis ally.