The question to ask about The Italians

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But no, collaboration was not the same as being a German ally. Get real.

Oh! They were collaborators but not allies! That's very different. Good grief!

This is how you justify your claims that I'm making all sorts of factual errors: You twist what I say into a strawman, then knock it over.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Piteas

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


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.

The spanish territory is very different from Libya.
On this map, there are three ways for the Germans. In the three ones they would have to cross several wide rivers, at least two mountain ranges and a lot of enemy cities in difficult flanking or siege areas. Dozens of small Tobruks.
Of course, they could win. But it would not be a walk along the Libyan coast.

These would be supply columns - in the rear areas. The combat would be handled much differently and earlier.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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.

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.

I don't know where you get those driving times from. The military travels slow unless it is returning from an FTX - especially for the Class VI items. But in Spain you have to slow down for those hills and mountains plus the tight curves - remember that any grade above 7% is an obstacle. The drivers and crew need rest, sustenance, plus the vehicles need fuel and maintenance. A lot of vehicles will break down, what happens with those? You can't leave them alone. Those convoys need escorts, so those members and vehicles also need to be taken care of.

The web site provided the times. I only wanted the distances. The times are irrelevant. And all the above was true in the Desert as well - they still took Tobruk.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the BEF is still in France, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

If the BEF has been destroyed, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

If the BEF was evacuated without its equipment, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

Without a navy or amphibious transport, without strategic bombers and escorts, it's a fools errand.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I guess that the point, for anyone involved here, is: "What is your endgame on this thread?" If the answer is "To have someone say 'You know? I thought about what you wrote and I think that you are actually right!'" then I have a leaning tower for sale. [8|]

I think we've had a pretty good discussion on supply lines, regardless of all the other garbage.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The timescale in France was asap because the German economy wasn't equipped for a long war.

OK. The timescale for Spain is ASAP. When have I ever said otherwise. But I'm not going to say when it will be completed. That is not necessary, except that it will be completed before it can delay the postponed Barbarossa.

But for your scenario a timescale is very much required and is absolutely vital. The timescale here you say is anytime before 1942. That is just such a mind-blowingly fatuous comment. The Germans are invading the Soviets in 1942 - and that is non-negotiable for Hitler, before that they are invading Turkey, the Middle East, possibly France (depending on the Syrian response), they are invading Egypt, they are assisting the Italians in Libya, and possibly Greece and Yugoslavia - all in 1941. The Germans don't know what the Soviets will do either and so have to guard against any action in the east. NO the Germans haven't got until 1942, and to airily state they do is not clever and shows a complete lack of understanding of war and warfare - not to mention economics.

Until Barbarossa, the Germans have the European mainland practically to themselves. Far more ground forces than they can even use. Plenty for all the above requirements. If the Russians declare war in 1941, they will have more than enough force in Poland to hold them off - just remember how puny the Russians were at the start of Barbarossa.

As for economics, the Germans were not even in a total war economy, and wouldn't be till after Stalingrad. Plenty of slack to take up regardless of what happens.

warspite1

I just think you are still looking at this as a simple wargame. No logistics required. The whole point of this scenario from a German perspective is that it will put them in a better position than they were in in June 1941 historically. If not then its no good. The better start position in Turkey (if indeed that is achievable) will be squandered it they don't manage this properly.

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain (the shell requirements for Gibraltar will be prodigious), will take some time to build back up. And you need to follow your own arguments. You said that the German armies sitting around in northern France will give up their trucks to the army group in Spain. But now you say that the Germans have so many troops (what are they all front line units?) they can all afford to be used at the same time. Again, you seem to think so simply and just don't follow your own arguments. So yes, despite what you say, a timetable is incredibly important here.

And you talk about the army and seem to have totally forgotten the air force. How big was the Luftwaffe in 1940? You've got 800 aircraft in Spain alone (and that is for a Spain friendly scenario) but you seem to think they can just hang around in that theatre until 1942.....

I daren't bring up the use of oil because that brings us to Turkey and what Stalin would do, and this debate as it is is like pulling teeth so I'm not even going there.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Again, I don't understand the simplistic nature of your responses. I know less about Bulgaria, but know something of Romania in WWII. So the only reason you think the Romanians switched to the Soviets side, almost four years after joining the Axis, was because under the Germans they took heavy casualties? I mean.... I don't know where to even start with this.

But you think Spain (1940) and Romania (1940-1944) are operating "under the same circumstances"? Why? Please provide a paragraph just setting out how the situations are the same.

You're question was answered above (conquest). I'll try to rephrase it: Romania started out on the Axis side. It fought in Russia, taking thousands of losses to those Russians. The Russians went on to conquer Romania and occupy it. Romania then switched to the Russian side. This would be no different than Spain taking losses to the Germans as the Germans conquered Spain, and then Spain switching to the German side. Clearly, the examples of Romania and Bulgaria show that taking losses from and being conquered by one side does NOT prevent one from switching to that other side. In the case of weak nations, it might even make it probable: they bend with the wind.

You are incorrect.

Romania started out favoring the Allies.

Not the same as being a member of the Allied side.

Then part of it was occupied by the USSR. Then Nazi Germany sent in troops so it would not be completely overrun.

No question that the Romanians lost thousands in Russia and were invaded by them.

Bulgaria never sent units anywhere other than to lands that it occupied. It switched sides before it was invaded by the USSR.

They were, however, terror bombed by the Allies. Still joined up with them. Bend with the wind.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Again, I don't understand the simplistic nature of your responses. I know less about Bulgaria, but know something of Romania in WWII. So the only reason you think the Romanians switched to the Soviets side, almost four years after joining the Axis, was because under the Germans they took heavy casualties? I mean.... I don't know where to even start with this.

But you think Spain (1940) and Romania (1940-1944) are operating "under the same circumstances"? Why? Please provide a paragraph just setting out how the situations are the same.

You're question was answered above (conquest). I'll try to rephrase it: Romania started out on the Axis side. It fought in Russia, taking thousands of losses to those Russians. The Russians went on to conquer Romania and occupy it. Romania then switched to the Russian side. This would be no different than Spain taking losses to the Germans as the Germans conquered Spain, and then Spain switching to the German side. Clearly, the examples of Romania and Bulgaria show that taking losses from and being conquered by one side does NOT prevent one from switching to that other side. In the case of weak nations, it might even make it probable: they bend with the wind.

warspite1

Okay so you are saying the same circumstances apply to Romania and Spain because they were conquered (although in Spain's case that hasn't happened, but will be, so that's by the by). And that's it........ So to be clear, there are no other considerations that need to be taken into account when trying to determine what Spain's response would have been to an invasion by Germany? Really? You genuinely don't understand that Spain and Romania's position in 1940 and 1944 are so very different on so many levels?

I'm saying the circumstance of losing thousands to and being invaded and conquered by - then switching to that other side is the same.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well, history suggests otherwise doesn't it? For if anyone could, then what was Sea Lion all about? Quite clearly, anyone didn't did they?

I see. They didn't do it, therefore they couldn't do it. That 86's all hypotheticals doesn't it!

Hypotheticals are about what COULD have happened. COULD they have decided a cross-channel invasion was a fool's errand? Could they have decided that Italy would join the war? Could they have decided Egypt was a better way to get at the British? Could they have decided that they would need Middle Eastern oil?

The answer to those questions are all YES! Not just possible, but even probable had they given it their attention.

warspite1

AARRRGGHHHH!!!!! But this comes right back to the heart of the scenario and what was said almost from the outset. If you have everyone on the Axis side acting with hindsight and all the Allies unable to react to what is going on, then yes, you can make a case for a German victory. But what the hell is the point of that? Where is the fun, the challenge in that?

Right let's re-do WWII but the British start the war with 20 divisions and the French replace Gamelin with someone who is not fighting WWI and has given the French army an offensive doctrine. Right, that's the war over in 1939. Wow that was interesting wasn't it........

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

That's like claiming victory because your team was leading at half-time and then got whipped in the second half. Rommel's problem was his supply lines. Whether he could have won ultimately is debatable, not because he didn't have the tactical ability, but because he didn't have the supply. But you are holding the length of supply line in North Africa as your 'proof' about Spain.....

I'm not claiming they achieved victory in North Africa. I'm claiming they had enough supply to take Tobruk. That does indeed prove that trucks can successfully supply the forces in Spain over a distance as long as from Tripoli to Tobruk.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sorry, but you are still missing the point. Yes, truck supply can be extended from Tripoli to El-Alamein. Yes truck supply can be extended from the French border to Gibraltar......

But as has already been explained, this is only part of the story. As Rommel found, it is the quantum that killed him. Now, this wasn't all down to the trucks, this was also due to the capacity of Tripoli and the lesser ports of Benghazi and (eventually) Tobruk. But the Germans know they face bottle necks on the French border too.

They had enough "quantum" to take Tobruk. Benghazi had been trashed earlier. Very little port capacity left.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But no, collaboration was not the same as being a German ally. Get real.

Oh! They were collaborators but not allies! That's very different. Good grief!

This is how you justify your claims that I'm making all sorts of factual errors: You twist what I say into a strawman, then knock it over.

warspite1

This nonsense has got to stop Lemay. You are totally and utterly out of your depth here. Just clueless.

Vichy allowed the Germans the use of airbases in Syria. That was collaboration which was against their neutral status. But you think Vichy was an Axis ally????? Have a look at the US relationship with Vichy. You think they would have that relationship with an Axis ally after 10th December 1941?

Spain gave a degree of repair facilities and safe haven to u-boats - that was collaboration, against their mom-belligerent status - but you think they were German Allies????? Have a look at the US relationship with Spain and the supplies - especially food they gave to save them from famine. Again, you think the US saw them as Axis allies?

Sweden gave the Germans access to Swedish territory to allow troop movement - that was collaboration against their neutral status - you think Sweden was a German ally????

Some countries found themselves in situations that were highly uncomfortable - not wanting to be invaded and so needing to keep Germany sweet, but at the same time, not wanting to cheese the Allies off. They walked a difficult path. As a result there were things done by all countries caught in this situation. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM AXIS ALLIES. To suggest otherwise just shows a total lack of understanding and you are really embarrassing yourself here. Like with the trade embargoes and Japan, you don't even know your own country's WWII history.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



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.



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.



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.

I don't know where you get those driving times from. The military travels slow unless it is returning from an FTX - especially for the Class VI items. But in Spain you have to slow down for those hills and mountains plus the tight curves - remember that any grade above 7% is an obstacle. The drivers and crew need rest, sustenance, plus the vehicles need fuel and maintenance. A lot of vehicles will break down, what happens with those? You can't leave them alone. Those convoys need escorts, so those members and vehicles also need to be taken care of.

The web site provided the times. I only wanted the distances. The times are irrelevant. And all the above was true in the Desert as well - they still took Tobruk.

warspite1

Speaking of irrelevant - so is the distance and so is the taking of Tobruk.

[Curtis Lemay]

Back to Greece:

Note the third map of the Greek campaign I've now provided.

Note the two maps of routes from Athens to Albania that don't go through Salonika.

Of course, I'm going to be told that those routes didn't exist in 1941. But the first map counters that. You can trace the arrows back from Athens all the way to Monastir. There is no way a path from Salonika to the Albanian front can be traced without crossing that line of arrows.

This shows, once again, how easy it is to misunderstand a snippet of text in a book.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



You're question was answered above (conquest). I'll try to rephrase it: Romania started out on the Axis side. It fought in Russia, taking thousands of losses to those Russians. The Russians went on to conquer Romania and occupy it. Romania then switched to the Russian side. This would be no different than Spain taking losses to the Germans as the Germans conquered Spain, and then Spain switching to the German side. Clearly, the examples of Romania and Bulgaria show that taking losses from and being conquered by one side does NOT prevent one from switching to that other side. In the case of weak nations, it might even make it probable: they bend with the wind.

warspite1

Okay so you are saying the same circumstances apply to Romania and Spain because they were conquered (although in Spain's case that hasn't happened, but will be, so that's by the by). And that's it........ So to be clear, there are no other considerations that need to be taken into account when trying to determine what Spain's response would have been to an invasion by Germany? Really? You genuinely don't understand that Spain and Romania's position in 1940 and 1944 are so very different on so many levels?

I'm saying the circumstance of losing thousands to and being invaded and conquered by - then switching to that other side is the same.

warspite1

Yes I know WHAT you are saying. I have no idea why you would think its appropriate. I mean in World War II Britain and Japan were in exactly the same circumstances weren't they. They were both islands and both had an empire. There. Exactly the same [8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

That's like claiming victory because your team was leading at half-time and then got whipped in the second half. Rommel's problem was his supply lines. Whether he could have won ultimately is debatable, not because he didn't have the tactical ability, but because he didn't have the supply. But you are holding the length of supply line in North Africa as your 'proof' about Spain.....

I'm not claiming they achieved victory in North Africa. I'm claiming they had enough supply to take Tobruk. That does indeed prove that trucks can successfully supply the forces in Spain over a distance as long as from Tripoli to Tobruk.

warspite1

Do you know anything about the taking of Tobruk? Clearly not, but that is not important. What is important:

Why are you fixated on Tobruk - you know this was nowhere near their goal and that Tobruk is in Libya right?

So if the Germans had enough supply to take Tobruk from the green 2nd South African Division, that proves all your arguments about supply.... in Spain?????

Did Rommel have an army group in Libya? No, so that is not a comparison - I ask again, what does this one isolated case have to do with Spain?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

That's like claiming victory because your team was leading at half-time and then got whipped in the second half. Rommel's problem was his supply lines. Whether he could have won ultimately is debatable, not because he didn't have the tactical ability, but because he didn't have the supply. But you are holding the length of supply line in North Africa as your 'proof' about Spain.....

I'm not claiming they achieved victory in North Africa. I'm claiming they had enough supply to take Tobruk. That does indeed prove that trucks can successfully supply the forces in Spain over a distance as long as from Tripoli to Tobruk.

warspite1

And what they are supplying in terms of numbers is not important no?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Back to Greece:

Note the third map of the Greek campaign I've now provided.

Note the two maps of routes from Athens to Albania that don't go through Salonika.

Of course, I'm going to be told that those routes didn't exist in 1941. But the first map counters that. You can trace the arrows back from Athens all the way to Monastir. There is no way a path from Salonika to the Albanian front can be traced without crossing that line of arrows.

This shows, once again, how easy it is to misunderstand a snippet of text in a book.

warspite1

Uh oh, the maps are out. Right, third request. Please tell me which bit of the professionals of the US army saying the following was taken out of context by me:

"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".

Which bit did I mis-understand or take out of context?



I love this comment [:)]

Of course, I'm going to be told that those routes didn't exist in 1941. But the first map counters that. You can trace the arrows back from Athens all the way to Monastir. There is no way a path from Salonika to the Albanian front can be traced without crossing that line of arrows.

Well that proves it Lemay. You are so clearly right as always - those professional soldiers of the US army that studied this campaign were a bunch of idiots that can't even do a google search...... [8|] I have no idea how they researched the campaign, but bearing in mind they are putting their name to the study what do you think is more likely:

a) They actually researched the campaign and studied Greek plans, deployments and supply lines from Greek sources
b) They ignored all that boring crap and decided to look up some google maps so they could mis-read what roads were around in 2020. Then, just for **** and giggles, they decided to toss a coin to decide if they were going to guess that Salonika or Athens was used to supply the 1st Greek Army, so that, having made that guess, they could put the quote above about the supply system, centring on Salonika, in their study to make it seem like they knew what they were talking about.

And the US Army would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that meddling Curtis Lemay

Mmmmm.... I'm not putting too much money on option B here.



By the way, apologies I said 2nd Greek Army previously, but it was of course the 1st that was opposite the Italians in Albania).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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!!!

warspite1

And still you won't do the simplest of things. This is your scenario, this is your case to make. All I've asked you to do on a number of occasions now is to provide an outline, a timeline, of how a 'Vichy' Spain comes about. Show us who you think instigates the idea? What does it seek to achieve? Why is it accepted by both sides?

Truly, if your explanation for the reasoning behind Vichy France and it's creation is "The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied" then I suggest you have much reading to do on the subject before you can even begin to talk about 'Vichy' Spain.

As for the question - apologies I don't even recall you asking me the question. You may delight in "rubbing my nose in it" but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am always more than happy to answer any question. Before doing so however, you would need to let me know what it means please. I don't really understand why you are asking why the Germans would agree to stay out of Vichy. Are you sure this is not a question for someone else? Ranger Joe perhaps? I genuinely can't remember the background to this or where it comes from at all.

warspite1

Well? I thought you were going to "rub my nose in it" (whatever that means). So when I asked you to explain what your question meant, so that I could answer it, you decide not to respond....

So do you want me to answer this question or not?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the BEF is still in France, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

If the BEF has been destroyed, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

If the BEF was evacuated without its equipment, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

Without a navy or amphibious transport, without strategic bombers and escorts, it's a fools errand.

See hat I mean about leaving it up to you that it is a fool's errand? The Nazi Germans did not need a strategic air force to invade England, a tactical one would do.

The Nazi Germans could have had the sea lift on the channel if they needed it since they did get it there in actuality.