The question to ask about The Italians

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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.

And if they possess Gibraltar, Suez, and the Turkish border with the Russians they will be in a much better position.

The whole thing comes down to just how tough the Spanish and Turkish operations are going to be. You're trying to build them up into supermen. They aren't.

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.

The Spanish army is so small and of such low quality, destroying it can't amount to much of a supply drain. There has to be a permanent garrison in France regardless of what happens anywhere else. But they're not going to be doing much of anything except sitting on the coast. They won't miss some borrowed trucks.

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.....

There would be an initial Luftwaffe presence just to eliminate the Spanish AF. After than, they only need an amount sufficient to handle the tiny Spanish army. Those 800 planes are your figure for Gibraltar only. They will only be needed upon the assault on Gibraltar.

Yes, the Spanish Army will line up in formation to be destroyed by the Germans. [8|]

The Spanish Air Force will fly in nice formations near the German Luftwaffe bases and won't even try to evade when they are fired upon. [8|]

Turkey will do the same. [8|]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

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?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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?

It's only a single sentence without any context whatsoever.

And the maps prove that it can't mean what you think it means. The maps clearly show that the Germans moved from Monastir to Athens without going through Salonika. So, there has to be a path from Athens to the Albanian border if there is one from Salonika.

QED

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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?

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy France wasn't to keep the Germans out of an enclave of their country, why would the Germans have agreed to keep out of it? Clearly, no access to Vichy territory is a bad deal for the Germans. The French must have made it a vital provision of Vichy!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Obviously they did need a strategic airforce if they wanted to get air superiority over the channel. And the river barges were a very poor substitute for true amphibious transport. No river barges in OVERLORD.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Supplies did not capture Tobruk, troops did. What were the state of the defenses when the Germans liberated Tobruk?

They wouldn't have without supplies. The defenders were Commonwealth - far better than Spaniards.

[quoteThe German Armee in France mostly had horses for transport. How fast are those in the mountains and hills? How about the fodder and water?[/quote]

All supply lines were motorized, though. The TOE of a German foot infantry division had 942 trucks - for supply purposes. The horses towed the guns and wagons. Fodder and water, unlike petrol, can be foraged.

The German Armee units in North Afrika did not need that many supplies compared to what as needed for Spain. Where would those supplies come from? It would also have been a different type of warfare.

The Africa Corps units had far more motor vehicles than foot infantry units - and you can't forage for petrol. Doesn't matter, though. It's clear that sufficient supply was provided to take Tobruk - a far tougher task than the Spanish army.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This says much. You think its been a good debate about supply?

Yes. And you should pay attention. You could learn something.

Well let's see what you brought to the party:

- You've got your facts about rail supply totally and utterly wrong because you used a wiki article on 21st century US rail roads to 'prove' what the war-ravaged Spanish rail system in 1940 could provide and concluded that the rail system could handle all the German requirements and more....

It was 1940 rail. Someone said that European rail was somewhat less robust. But it still showed that the European rail lines could provide an enormous stream of supply. I never mentioned the Spanish rail system.

- Having had it proved by the Germans own numbers, that this was complete nonsense, you then sought to 'prove' the supply of an entire army group in Spain by truck is not a problem, and you evidenced this by showing that Rommel took Tobruk (which you appear totally fixated upon for some unknown reason) and his largely understrength force (about an army in size) got its supply from trucks and they like, really travelled a long way and everything ......

You like erecting straw men, don't you. Again, I never said the Spanish rail system would be used without repairing it European standards. But, even without that, trucks alone can project supply far further than any place in Spain. That's proved by North Africa.

- In addition you have effectively rubbished the professional supply officers of the German army who planned Felix, as a bunch of amateurs (you've written off and dismissed just about everything they've said about going to war - even with Spain as an ally). As an example their concerns about the state of the roads for the 1,200kn march were "barely adequate; narrow, winding and laid through passes 2,000 metres high, where ice and fog would present difficulties. Wagner reckoned with major demands on drivers and equipment (particularly engines, tyres and brakes)..."

But you know better apparently and said:

See the physical map of Spain I attached. Overlay it with the Spanish path shown and you'll see that the mountainous regions are bypassed. There are hills, but no mountains. The mountains are not continuous across Spain, only in spots. So it is easy for supply columns to bypass them.

What did those stoopid German officers who surveyed the ground know anyway? If only they had access to a google map.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

- You also effectively state the US army team that wrote a study of the Balkan Campaign are a bunch of incompetents...

You're interpretation of an out of context snippet is what is in question.

...who don't have the skills you do in being able to do a google map search [8|] and you've 'proved' supply was possible from Athens because:

a) you've produced maps with a lot of arrows of German forces heading south.....

Yep. If the Germans could do it why couldn't the Greeks?

b) you've produced modern day maps showing roads between Athens and Albania.

Again, yes. And the map with the arrows on it follow those roads.

But as ever, in your simplistic and myopic view, you've given no consideration to the distance from Athens to Albania (compared to Salonika to Albania) and whether supply considerations could also have been affected by availability of trucks or rail lines. Do you know the Greek logistical situation in 1940? Has that even crossed your mind? There were 14 divisions of the 1st Greek Army to supply. That is a lot of provisions daily. But you see that sort of detail is just unimportant to you. So long as you prove there was a road between Athens and Albania in 2020 then all other considerations - including the conclusions of the US Army - are simply not worth considering.

About 500km or so. Well within truck supply distance. And there was a rail line to the north for part of the way.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

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?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.

The division does not have enough supply trucks to carry enough supplies for any distance. The trucks that they do have are for doing different things than hauling supplies a long distance.

An Army can carry supplies by truck halfway across the world if they have enough trucks, fuel, and support for them. But it is not efficient and has diminishing returns.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




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|]

Clearly, these examples show that taking losses and being invaded and conquered is no impediment to joining the conquering side.

So, German conquest of Spain would not be an impediment to making a deal with the Axis. And, since Franco has no where else to turn, why wouldn't he make that deal?

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

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?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.

Wrong. It is pertinent as to how much of the force is supplied by trucks since those are a limited asset, the farther the units are from the supply source the harder it is to supply them or fewer units will be able to be supplied by the same number of trucks.

Or are you stating that it would be just as easy for Southern California to send the same amount of supplies to New York City as it would be to send the same amount of supplies to Las Vegas using the same number and types of trucks using the same number of men, supplies, and equipment to support said trucks? Plus keep doing so for weeks and months?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




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.

warspite1

Well? Do I get the courtesy of a response or not?

You're the one playing infantile word games. I repeat, they're not going to make the Canaries British territory, but they still won't get out if the Spanish ask them to. That's a reason why the Spanish wouldn't want them in the Canaries when they can accomplish the same thing on the mainland.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: UP844

2) some of the supplies landing in Tripoli, Bengasi or Tobruk were brought near the front by means of small coastal convoys

Benghazi had been trashed earlier. Practically no port capacity. Tobruk had limited port capacity as well (and it wouldn't have helped capture Tobruk in any even, of course).

We can be sure that much supply had to come via Tripoli, since Malta played a significant logistical role in 1942. It couldn't have had any effect on Benghazi or Tobruk.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

Because those democracies are never going to put him back in power.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

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?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.

Wrong. It is pertinent as to how much of the force is supplied by trucks since those are a limited asset, the farther the units are from the supply source the harder it is to supply them or fewer units will be able to be supplied by the same number of trucks.

Or are you stating that it would be just as easy for Southern California to send the same amount of supplies to New York City as it would be to send the same amount of supplies to Las Vegas using the same number and types of trucks using the same number of men, supplies, and equipment to support said trucks? Plus keep doing so for weeks and months?

The further you get from the supply head, the slower supplies build up. But Tobruk proves that the distance from Tripoli to Tobruk wasn't too far yet.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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.

And if they possess Gibraltar, Suez, and the Turkish border with the Russians they will be in a much better position.

The whole thing comes down to just how tough the Spanish and Turkish operations are going to be. You're trying to build them up into supermen. They aren't.

warspite1

....and you re-appear on the thread just to take us right back to where we started....[8|]

If, if, if..... and I've asked you to make a proper case, and you not only refuse to do so, but what little effort you have put in has been largely based on incorrect information, questionable - and in some cases frankly bizarre - assumptions, and a refusal to believe the professionals of the German army (though you believe them when it suits you).

Re the bit in bold, once again a complete lie that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. First request.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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:

What is that possession or 'incorporation'?



.... 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.

warspite1

Well? Do I get the courtesy of a response or not?

You're the one playing infantile word games. I repeat, they're not going to make the Canaries British territory, but they still won't get out if the Spanish ask them to. That's a reason why the Spanish wouldn't want them in the Canaries when they can accomplish the same thing on the mainland.

There you go, insulting someone again. [X(]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

Because those democracies are never going to put him back in power.

How about the dictatorships?

But you state that the United States of America would never put a Free Spanish government back into power if it conquered Spain? What would the United States of America do? Annex Spain? [8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There would be an initial Luftwaffe presence just to eliminate the Spanish AF. After than, they only need an amount sufficient to handle the tiny Spanish army. Those 800 planes are your figure for Gibraltar only. They will only be needed upon the assault on Gibraltar.

warspite1

You've already been told the source for the 800 aircraft is not my figure - 800 aircraft plus 3,000 vehicles (incl. 3 heavy and 3 light AA battalions) was agreed by the Luftwaffe following a meeting between the CoS of the VIII Air Corps and the staff of XLIX Corps on the 16 November 1940.

And why don't you ever bother to think things through? If those aircraft were needed for Gibraltar in a Spain friendly scenario (which included neutralising the RN) then clearly some of those aircraft will be needed during the Spanish campaign if the RN try and provide support through NGS or supply.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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........

The hypothetical only has to consider alternatives that could be induced by the hypothetical. Does Germany adopting a Med Strategy induce the British to expand their army? How, when they wouldn't even know about it? Does it illuminate the French about Blitzkrieg? How? Again, they don't even know about it.

warspite1

And your irrelevant answer had exactly what to do with my point??????

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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.

At no point have I said that Vichy France was an Axis belligerent. A collaborator is an ally (small "a"). Stop twisting my words.

warspite1

This sort of response simply shames you more and more. You said that Vichy France was an Axis ally. Now, having been shown up yet again you seek to squirm your way out of it by playing yet more word games.

Once again, if I am wrong and you believe now there is a difference between belligerents and allies, please show me the examples of when you've referred to the Japanese and the Italians as Axis belligerents in this thread, and how many times you've referred to them as allies.

noun, plural al·lies.
a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

You say a collaborator is an ally. So you say Vichy was a German ally? You say Spain was a German ally? You say Sweden was a German ally? And you think the US were happy to trade with German allies? The British were happy to trade with German allies? You see Lemay, whatever word game you choose to adopt to cover your confusion and floundering around, you are still hopelessly wrong.

....and yet you suggest I'm twisting YOUR words???? Your response is disingenuous as always Lemay and continues to lower your stock here each time.