The question to ask about The Italians

[warspite1]

So the very first question we need to have a consensus on is when, realistically, Hitler would have decided a Med strategy is the way to go.

My view is that such a strategy should not be considered until June - and this would have been after the armistice is signed. I say this for three main reasons:

1. Going for any strategy - be it a Med strategy or a Soviet strategy or a Sea Lion strategy - is totally superfluous to Hitler's thinking until such time as Poland and France are defeated. After all, who - least of all Hitler - is going to imagine how the war will pan out in September 1939.

2. Only once Hitler knows Mussolini has joined the war, does the Med even come onto anyone's radar.

3. During May and June 1940 Hitler has his hands full trying to beat France, Britain and their Allies. To suggest that at this time Hitler is going to be diverted from this major operation (Case Yellow) to start thinking earnestly about Spain, and having in-depth conversations with Mussolini and Franco, while France has yet to be resolved, just seems highly unlikely.


Why is this important and the place to start? Well for two reasons:

a) it governs how quickly, after France, an attack on Spain would take place - and that is really important in terms of the knock-on effect elsewhere, the preparedness of the various belligerents etc

b) it also governs what Hitler may or may not have ordered during his time of indecision after France surrenders.

So that's my thoughts, but what do others think? So when, realistically, do we think Hitler would have had his light-bulb moment? To be clear this is simply when Hitler decides that a Med First solution is to be planned and not when the planning is finalised - that comes next....

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If Spain joined the Axis would they seek to incorporate Portugal do you think? What were Spanish-Portuguese relations like in 1940?

If Spain joined the Axis, I've no doubt that they would incorporate Portugal, in spite there was an Iberian Pact between the two countries.
The Iberian Pact was a non-aggression pact signed in 1939, but we know what can happen with signed pacts.

As a side note, Salazar never trusted Franco.
Franco had written a thesis (as far as I remember it was written when he was the Infantry Academy) on how to invade Portugal in 24 hours. So the intent to invade Portugal was there. Later, in 1975, he equated once again in invading Portugal.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If Spain refuses to join the Axis, would the Germans seek to occupy Portugal? We know Hitler was paranoid about his flanks and exposed coastline...

If Spain was invaded by Germany, they would had also to invade Portugal or at least arrange a deal with Salazar that would permit fully access to the Portuguese mainland and to the wolfram mines.
Was a deal possible when there was Windsor treaty?
With a German invasion, this would force, most probably, the British to invade Azores islands.
Would the Portuguese government then evacuate to the Azores, forming a government-in-exile? That's another possibility.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

I always thought (but did not know) that the Portuguese were pro Allied all the way.

Please note that the Portuguese regime was a fascist (some prefer just to call it as an authoritarian) regime.
One of the fears of the regime, and the hopes of the democratic opposition, was if in the case the Allies won the war, this would put international pressure to end the dictatorship in Portugal.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If Spain joined the Axis would they seek to incorporate Portugal do you think? What were Spanish-Portuguese relations like in 1940?

If Spain joined the Axis, I've no doubt that they would incorporate Portugal, in spite there was an Iberian Pact between the two countries.
The Iberian Pact was a non-aggression pact signed in 1939, but we know what can happen with signed pacts.

As a side note, Salazar never trusted Franco.
Franco had written a thesis (as far as I remember it was written when he was the Infantry Academy) on how to invade Portugal in 24 hours. So the intent to invade Portugal was there. Later, in 1975, he equated once again in invading Portugal.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If Spain refuses to join the Axis, would the Germans seek to occupy Portugal? We know Hitler was paranoid about his flanks and exposed coastline...

If Spain was invaded by Germany, they would had also to invade Portugal or at least arrange a deal with Salazar that would permit fully access to the Portuguese mainland and to the wolfram mines.
Was a deal possible when there was Windsor treaty?
With a German invasion, this would force, most probably, the British to invade Azores islands.
Would the Portuguese government then evacuate to the Azores, forming a government-in-exile? That's another possibility.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

I always thought (but did not know) that the Portuguese were pro Allied all the way.

Please note that the Portuguese regime was a fascist (some prefer just to call it as an authoritarian) regime.
One of the fears of the regime, and the hopes of the democratic opposition, was if in the case the Allies won the war, this would put international pressure to end the dictatorship in Portugal.

warspite1

More great value-add. Thanks VP.

[RangerJoe]

Lisbon was a major spy center for both sides, as I recall.

Nazi Germany had to make more munitions after France fell, stocks were depleted. So there would have been some ammo and toys like explosives to play with, but production needed to be expanded. Likewise, the production of medium tanks needed to be expanded since in the combat units the light tanks such as the Mark Is were going to be eliminated and the Mark II usage severely curtailed. The short barreled STUG III was just being introduced, the long barreled version came later. The Germans still depended a large part on the Czech tanks a year later.

Truck production was messed up and should have been streamlined into just one model for military production for the various sizes like the US equivalent of the 1/4 ton Utility Truck, the 3/4 ton Pick-up, the Weapons Carrier, and the 2 1/2 ton truck where all manufacturers of military trucks would make the same design. My understanding is that this was not done during the war at all.

Staff studies would have a lot to do with this, but Hitler would have the final say. He would also direct the planning and until Italy came in and France could be defeated, there would not be a lot of concrete steps to be taken anyway. Once Italy came in, Little Bennie wanted to show that Italy could play with the big boys and wanted to secure the Med for Italy, no help from Germany wanted or needed. At least, until Italy was spanked rather severely. I had already mentioned what an aggressive, maybe overly aggressive, Italian military could have tried. But until all the units that Germany wanted had been equipped plus what minor forces needed to be equipped since there was little to no more modern equipment produced in those countries, Italy could expect little assistance with German equipment for the Italian military. What Italy could have done would have been to consolidate new equipment requirements and production so there would be a commonality in parts and munitions, much like what Europe and NATO is doing today.

[Piteas]

I think that Spain was unimportant in Hitler's plans. His dream and public wish was the East and its vast lands for german settlers. Spain was only interesting because of Gibraltar. Also, the interview with Franco in Hendaya was a disaster. Hitler did not like his excessive prudence and high demands. As he said: "With this guy I can't do anything" (in "Franco", Paul Preston).
But neither with others, because Franco had no opposition among the spanish generals in 1940.

The plan to conquer Gibraltar was delayed, delayed and... forgotten. After all, the Med was always an "italian zone" in the german strategy and it was not a priority in nazi ideology, because it was not their natural expansion area. Their obsession was the East.
Although in 1942 Hitler thought of an invasion of Spain, but not clearly... Only a possible plan in a long list of ones against the allied expansion.

Postdata: If you want to control the Iberian Peninsula, you have to conquer Portugal. Especially if you are at war with the UK. It's imperative, we the spaniards know it very well.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

I can offer one bit of information that came from my suffering, the Brits rejected the idea of intervening militarily in the Iberian Peninsula if the Germans invaded there during this period, rejecting it both before and after BoB. As you suggested previously, their planning focus was instead on the taking of the Atlantic islands and possibly securing a lodgement in the Spanish territories in NW Africa (including Tangier and Ceuta). There was also a plan to operate the SOE in the Iberian Peninsula of course, as well as supplying weapons and equipment to any resistance groups that formed there (and assumedly after they promised to fight the Germans and not each other).

Uh oh. Things are looking worse for the Spaniards.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

......or the professional soldiers of the US Army.

Which you've clearly taken an out-of-context snippet from.

warspite1

....and that comment comes from where? So exactly what was the context that I've missed here? Please tell? No one liners please, I want you to confirm exactly what I've missed.

Secondly, I want you to confirm exactly how the maps you've produced show the US Army to be a bunch of idiots who can't spot something obvious on a WWII Atlas.

Both maps I posted showed the Germans moving all over Greece, including crossing the spine of the central mountain range to the west coast, which is mostly flatland. They didn't have to go through Salonika to get there.

And I'm not saying the US Army are idiots. I'm saying you took a snippet out of context.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

I can offer one bit of information that came from my suffering, the Brits rejected the idea of intervening militarily in the Iberian Peninsula if the Germans invaded there during this period, rejecting it both before and after BoB. As you suggested previously, their planning focus was instead on the taking of the Atlantic islands and possibly securing a lodgement in the Spanish territories in NW Africa (including Tangier and Ceuta). There was also a plan to operate the SOE in the Iberian Peninsula of course, as well as supplying weapons and equipment to any resistance groups that formed there (and assumedly after they promised to fight the Germans and not each other).

Uh oh. Things are looking worse for the Spaniards.

warspite1

Why? What did you think the British were going to do? You are the one that thinks they "need to be on the mainland" (I believe that was the quote or something very similar). I certainly don't. The only caveats to that are:

a) Churchill may get carried away and decide help should be sent (a la Greece [8|]) but I would like to think not - and even if he did, the practical help would be thankfully small out of necessity. But anyway, to believe he would do goes against your own argument i.e. that the threat of invasion would mean little or no help for Spain. You can't have it both ways but you seem to have taken Buckrock's comment as a positive without questioning what you yourself are arguing.....

b) It may be prudent to send a small force into southern Spain just north of Gibraltar to 'prepare' a welcome pack for the Germans. Mines, booby traps, cratered approach roads, that sort of thing. A delaying force may then remain to meet the German advance guard at the end of their 1,200km march, but they would literally be that, with a view to retreating in good order back to The Rock.

As said previously, British assistance on the mainland would be in the form of air cover, naval gunfire support and the provision of arms and equipment together with a sprinkle of SOE (to the extent available).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am not sure if you believe what you are writing or just attention seeking. Genuinely, your comments are becoming so bizarre the more this goes on.

a) where is the evidence that Britain were going to do that? Perhaps you think they possessed Iceland? or Crete?
b) how many territories were possessed by Britain, France, America as they came back at the Germans in WWII?
c) Every post you just make yourself look more and more 'limited' in your thinking, in your knowledge, in your analysis. So with 800 German aircraft in southern France, if Gibraltar is not going to be a viable port, why do you think Corunna or Cadiz or anywhere else on mainland Spain is going to be? I mean do you EVER bother to think anything through?

I've not said that they were going to incorporate them into their national territories. But they won't get out if the Spanish demand it. That's what matters.

Those planes were in France as well. The British still had to be on the mainland. They were not given access to FNA.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Which you've clearly taken an out-of-context snippet from.

warspite1

....and that comment comes from where? So exactly what was the context that I've missed here? Please tell? No one liners please, I want you to confirm exactly what I've missed.

Secondly, I want you to confirm exactly how the maps you've produced show the US Army to be a bunch of idiots who can't spot something obvious on a WWII Atlas.

Both maps I posted showed the Germans moving all over Greece, including crossing the spine of the central mountain range to the west coast, which is mostly flatland. They didn't have to go through Salonika to get there.

And I'm not saying the US Army are idiots. I'm saying you took a snippet out of context.

warspite1

I only recall one map and that showed the Germans, having taken Salonika, moving south across Greece.

Don't know if you realise it but the German army marching south towards Athens, weren't actually supplied from Athens so not sure why this is relevant.

The German forces in the mountains are not an entire army being supplied on a daily basis with all the provisions such an army requires. They are also moving fast against a collapsing enemy - these German units are largely pushing against an open door.

The Greeks had already made overtures to the Germans. Had the Germans been able (or willing) to tell the Italians* to move away in Albania and to be replaced by German troops, its more than possible the Greeks would have surrendered. But Mussolini wouldn't countenance this and Hitler did not want to embarrass his ally.

So all that proves absolutely nothing as regards to Athens being a supply source for the 2nd Greek Army and the fact that a German force can move south over a section of the mountain range, having been supplied from the east of their position.

Now, second point, what is it you've seen that shows I've taken the study out of context? There is no merit in just saying I've taken something out of contest without actually evidencing what I've taken 'incorrectly'. I provided the quote previously and so I ask again, what is it I've misunderstood?

Second Request for this explanation.


* You see here is a perfect example of why you are so wrong about the Italians being happy to work for the Germans and the Germans being able to force the Italians to so things that were politically difficult.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




Which you've clearly taken an out-of-context snippet from.

warspite1

....and that comment comes from where? So exactly what was the context that I've missed here? Please tell? No one liners please, I want you to confirm exactly what I've missed.

Secondly, I want you to confirm exactly how the maps you've produced show the US Army to be a bunch of idiots who can't spot something obvious on a WWII Atlas.

Both maps I posted showed the Germans moving all over Greece, including crossing the spine of the central mountain range to the west coast, which is mostly flatland. They didn't have to go through Salonika to get there.

And I'm not saying the US Army are idiots. I'm saying you took a snippet out of context.

The Germans did not fight entrenched, determined soldiers and officers who knew the land that they grew up in. Most of the Greek Army was kicking the Italian Army out of Albania.

You have repeatedly stated that people who design games to make money know more about things than the military and academic experts, that is calling them idiots.

How much actual military experience have you had?

BTW, have you gone to see your health care professionals for an adjustment, an increase, in you pharmaceuticals? Do you even bother to go to health care professionals? Or do you know more about the things that they have studied than they do? Or do you self medicate, whether or not you have someone stating that you actually need those pharmaceuticals?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am not sure if you believe what you are writing or just attention seeking. Genuinely, your comments are becoming so bizarre the more this goes on.

a) where is the evidence that Britain were going to do that? Perhaps you think they possessed Iceland? or Crete?
b) how many territories were possessed by Britain, France, America as they came back at the Germans in WWII?
c) Every post you just make yourself look more and more 'limited' in your thinking, in your knowledge, in your analysis. So with 800 German aircraft in southern France, if Gibraltar is not going to be a viable port, why do you think Corunna or Cadiz or anywhere else on mainland Spain is going to be? I mean do you EVER bother to think anything through?

I've not said that they were going to incorporate them into their national territories. But they won't get out if the Spanish demand it. That's what matters.

Those planes were in France as well. The British still had to be on the mainland. They were not given access to FNA.

warspite1

You said the British were going to possess the islands. But now you play word games with possession and incorporation???? What is the difference?

Here's some of your quotes to help you:

They would possess them. And good luck to the Spanish getting them out.

What is that possession or 'incorporation'?

I don't think Franco will agree to British possession of their colonies

And the British are taking possession of the Canaries, as I've made clear elsewhere. If the Spanish can't get them to leave, that's possession.

.... or is that incorporation????

But regardless of the infantile word games, why would the Spanish demand the Royal Navy leave anyway? They will be happy for the Royal Navy to leave once the war is won - because that means Spain is no longer occupied by the Germans. In the absence of Gibraltar the Royal Navy need the Canaries.

No idea what you are talking about the British being on the mainland. But I'm sure it means something to you, but if you mean British troops on the mainland (and that's not a likely scenario) wouldn't that mean possession so Franco won't let them in anyway? [:D]

I still have no idea why you keep bringing French North Africa into the conversation.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Whoops Curtis Lemay's credibility has finally fallen through the floor..... You consistently credit me with saying things I haven't said. You are thoroughly dishonest.

Where did you get that rail repair in impossible in Spain. No weasel words, or ignoring the post, please show me where I've said rail repair is impossible.

Where did I say that you did? I posted a rhetorical question. Because you certainly were implying it. But, now it's clear, the Germans can repair the rail lines.

Again you use the most ridiculous of examples - North Africa - to try and make your case in Spain.

Not only is it not a ridiculous example, it's the stake in the heart for the Spanish campaign. Rail repair isn't even necessary. North Africa proves it.

Minimum needs? For an entire army group.... erm..... To be fair, you obviously know more than the US Military and so I guess its only to be expected you know more than the logistics and supply guys that took the German army to the gates of Moscow and the Caucasus.

No. I only need to know as much as the logistic guys that took the German army to Tobruk and El Alamein.

Tripoli to Tobruk: 1257 km (and that's bypassing the Jabal Akhdar - using it totals 1450km).
Tripoli to El Alamein: 1784 km.
San Sebastian to Gibraltar: 1130 km - shorter that any route above. And nothing in Spain is further than that.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Divisions have their own supply assets built in. So, the more divisions in a force, the more supply assets, including trucks. Plus, there will be more than an army group sitting on its hands on the channel. Their truck needs will be greatly reduced, allowing loans to the forces in Spain.

warspite1

Ah okay I get you. So its better from a supply perspective for Germany to have 5 divisions in Spain than 1 or 10 rather than 5 or 50 rather than 10 - because that eases the supply situation. Gotcha. Great point.

No. You didn't even come close to "getting" me: The Germans will have trucks in proportion to their force size. Plus more than that due to the forces that are cooling their heels on the Channel. So, supplies arriving at the Spanish border will be delivered to the German forces in Spain at at least as plentifully as they were delivered to the German forces at Tobruk and El Alamein. And that's without any rail repair.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Whoops Curtis Lemay's credibility has finally fallen through the floor..... You consistently credit me with saying things I haven't said. You are thoroughly dishonest.

Where did you get that rail repair in impossible in Spain. No weasel words, or ignoring the post, please show me where I've said rail repair is impossible.

Where did I say that you did? I posted a rhetorical question. Because you certainly were implying it. But, now it's clear, the Germans can repair the rail lines.

warspite1

There you go.

So, are you now saying that rail repair is somehow impossible in Spain?

Now, please show me where I even implied rail repair was impossible. Second request

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So, here is the scenario (and remember, no one is talking about possession of the islands by the British despite your unsubtle and frankly disgusting attempt to put words in my mouth). The Germans have just back-stabbed their allies the Spanish by invading them, an act which - never mind the treachery itself - will lead to starvation. The Germans are now killing Spaniards, bombing civilians, offering up the usual Nazi reprisals for any offence, etc etc - in short, all the hideousness of twentieth century warfare being meted out to the Spanish population.

In response the British (with the US in the wings) are offering whole manner of rewards and as much assistance as they can provide. However they really need to be able to use the Canaries as a naval base because Gibraltar is about to be hors de combat. The use of the base not only helps the British but of course also allows some direct support for Spain.

Now, despite the fact that everyone else who has expressed an opinion sees the nonsense of your view, you maintain that the Spanish would say no to the RN. And furthermore, you think that as a result of the British offering financial and material help in return for the use of the anchorage, the Spanish will not only say no [this is too funny] but in so doing, will actually switch sides and now be BFF's with the Germans who are busy invading their country and killing their citizens....

Let's see....The Romanians started out Axis...lost untold thousands to the Russians...were invaded by the Russians (with all the above carnage)...and finished the war on the side of...the Russians! Same for the Bulgarians.

Weak countries bend with the wind. The wind, in 1940, blows from Germany. And it's even worse with Franco - he really has nowhere else to turn: The Western Democracies are not going to be his friends.

And the British are taking possession of the Canaries, as I've made clear elsewhere. If the Spanish can't get them to leave, that's possession.

warspite1

Well I guess you felt you had a couple of choices a) you could answer my point or b) you could talk about something totally irrelevant to try and disguise your complete lack of case.
[/quote][/quote]
Romania and Bulgaria are exactly to the point. You claim that Spain wouldn't flip to the Axis side because of the casualties they would take in an invasion. Yet that's exactly what Romania and Bulgaria did, under the same circumstances (conquest).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Not only is it not a ridiculous example, it's the stake in the heart for the Spanish campaign. Rail repair isn't even necessary. North Africa proves it.

warspite1

How does North Africa prove anything about Spain? I mean:

- the numbers of troops being supplied is massively different - not only are we talking about a whole army group in Spain, but also the make up of the army will be different (and more costly in terms of supply) than the DAK, which featured mostly understrength Italian units and only two panzer divisions for most of the time.
- the terrain is vastly different (as noted and feared by the German planners the Spanish terrain is not vehicle friendly)
- the hardware required (for Gibraltar) is different (I say again, how many artillery regiments are proposed for Gib? These need to be transported - along with all their ammunition to the south of Spain by road.....).
- you've made great play of the North African supply and how that proves Spain is no problem. So how did the attempts to supply his forces work out for Rommel?
- and of course, as Piteas points out later in this thread, the Germans in North Africa aren't travelling through territory where partisans and small groups of troops in mountains and villages can block and destroy convoys, fell bridges, collapse tunnels.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. I only need to know as much as the logistic guys that took the German army to Tobruk and El Alamein.

Tripoli to Tobruk: 1257 km (and that's bypassing the Jabal Akhdar - using it totals 1450km).
Tripoli to El Alamein: 1784 km.
San Sebastian to Gibraltar: 1130 km - shorter that any route above. And nothing in Spain is further than that.





There, I've just proved you are wrong. The Germans couldn't get supply to their forces west of El-Alamein as there were road works on the via Balbia. No wonder Rommel lost at El-Alamein.....

warspite1

But you don't know what the logistics guys knew in North Africa. If you did you wouldn't use that as an example. If you cared what the logistics guys knew then you wouldn't ignore what the logistics guys said about undertaking operations in Spain.

As per post 1013, what do these pretty pictures actually mean in terms of the argument you seek to make? You are ignoring so many variables and the only thing that matters apparently is distance.

But distance is, in itself, just another problem for the Germans. In the western desert when travelling 1,000 miles each way, it was reckoned that some 35% of vehicles would be undergoing repair at any one time. Now, that is using the all weather via Balbia.

Imagine then Spain, with (as the Germans put it) narrow, twisty roads, often in high mountain passes. Imagine what that would do to the suspension, wheels, tyres and engines? It was reckoned in North Africa, between one-third and one-half of the fuel delivered to North Africa was then expended in getting supplies to the front. Good job Axis oil supplies are plentiful.... oh no wait a minute.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So you still won't talk about your thoughts on a 'Vichy' Spain. Well, I'm still not doing your work for you and I'm still not answering your stupid questions

I've told you my thoughts on Vichy: The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied. And I'll ask you again: Why would the Germans ever agree to stay out of Vichy if that wasn't the French purpose of Vichy? And I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in that till you answer, because there isn't any answer, except that that was the purpose of Vichy!!!

As for the rest of this post, sorry but it's just more of the same well worn, and frankly laughable nonsense. You talk of Spain getting a "very favourable deal" but have not the foggiest notion about which you talk.

If Franco had got a "very favourable deal" he may well have joined Hitler. Hitler couldn't - never mind wouldn't - Hitler couldn't give Spain all that she needed. But now, according to you, Spain will get a "very favourable deal". Yes I guess if you count starvation, an even more wrecked economy, absolutely no access to oil, no Gibraltar, no Spanish Morocco and an occupied country a "very favourable deal" then I guess you have a point [8|]

What constitutes a favorable deal before invasion and what constitutes one after conquest are two different things. Once Spain is conquered, Franco would see a return to power as a very favorable deal. He certainly won't get it from the Allies.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Divisions have their own supply assets built in. So, the more divisions in a force, the more supply assets, including trucks. Plus, there will be more than an army group sitting on its hands on the channel. Their truck needs will be greatly reduced, allowing loans to the forces in Spain.

warspite1

Ah okay I get you. So its better from a supply perspective for Germany to have 5 divisions in Spain than 1 or 10 rather than 5 or 50 rather than 10 - because that eases the supply situation. Gotcha. Great point.

No. You didn't even come close to "getting" me: The Germans will have trucks in proportion to their force size. Plus more than that due to the forces that are cooling their heels on the Channel. So, supplies arriving at the Spanish border will be delivered to the German forces in Spain at at least as plentifully as they were delivered to the German forces at Tobruk and El Alamein. And that's without any rail repair.

warspite1

No I didn't get you, I was so thoroughly depressed with your answers yesterday I resorted to sarcasm.

So, supplies arriving at the Spanish border will be delivered to the German forces in Spain at at least as plentifully as they were delivered to the German forces at Tobruk and El Alamein.

"At least as plentifully"?.... I am sure that will be of great comfort to the troops in Spain, just as it was to Rommel.....