OT:German imports from Spain/Turkey?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

I've read a bit on this subject - not as much as the Baltic - but enough to make your questioning of my question unsatisfactory as an answer. What are the Germans getting out of Black Sea operations from Turkey such that the Germans would be:

- willing to attack Turkey but not defeat her with all that means in terms of losses, in terms of time lost, in terms of political reaction (and the very real possibility that Soviet oil and resource under the NS Pact is switched off)
- willing to risk disruption of Turkish resources (Chromium being the main one) from Turkey to Germany
- willing to leave Ploesti vulnerable to attack from Turkish airbases
- willing to drain manpower resources for Barbarossa and weaken concentration of force (which was weak for the south in any case) by having a whole army group in Turkey

This grand plan doesn't seem coherent.

And remember too that, depending on Hitler's decision over Vichy that you believe he would be willing to make, Germany could now have enemies from Turkey, through Syria and down to Egypt. So far from this 'Blitz through Spain and Turkey' assisting the German cause, it appears to be rapidly making things worse for no good reason....

The advantage is that the Axis have unfettered access to the Black Sea, can embark on much more ambitious naval operations and can take full advantage of the Soviet Black Sea ports.

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Mostly small unit stuff. The larger Soviet units were mostly taken out by airpower. The largest Axis unit in the Black Sea was a DD. It is not really a theater I know a lot about, but I still don't see what opening up the straights would allow. Italian units constrained by limited supply of oil, Germany really doesn't have many large units, and the ones they do have are likely best used as Atlantic commerce raiders rather than coastal bombardment units in the Black Sea, especially early war when Germany had nearly complete command of the air. So please expand on what you think controlling the straights would allow? I am curious. thanks.

Battleships get much of the attention, but sometimes the coastal (and even riverine!) operations have their role too.

It's not about the size of the units commitment, but the geography that matters.

A larger Axis naval commitment to the Black Sea likely means a quicker surrender in the Crimea, and massively simplifies the logistical situation for units along the coast.

The importance of the Axis being able to use riverine traffic on the Dnieper and Don is diminished by the fact that they'll inevitably freeze in winter, but for the critical summer months that's a key transportation route in a very low infrastructure area.

Again I ask - what units? Small ships and river craft were shipped to the Black Sea by rail/road. Don't need the straights to get those there. Not sure where the larger naval commit is coming from.....

You're seriously limited in what size of ship you can move overland.

[fcooke]

So - what units are you referring to? You have referred to coastal and riverine ops but I still don't know what ships you feel were available and needed the straights to get in.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Worth considering the assumption that the Turkish leadership has the sangfroid to consider fighting it out with the Germans after losing Thrace, Istanbul and likely much of the Aegean portion of Turkey.

warspite1

So you think the Germans would embark on such an attack in the hope that the Turks wouldn't be a tad miffed and fight back? Doesn't sound like much in the way of a coherent plan.

What a silly thing to say.

Diplomatic pragmatism - a nation on the fringes of Europe which has seen significant decline and possessing (at best) a military force of WW1 vintage is attacked by a Central European power that has military hegemony over Europe. Support from allied nations is likely to be limited at best (given the UK has other pressing commitments and the material needed for the Turkish army would be extensive).

In that environment, sticking out a long, protracted and damaging war makes little sense when compared to a negotiated peace that gives time for both extensive rearmament and the potential for the balance of power to shift.

I am sure that Churchill agreed with you.

BTW, the Turkish military was modernizing.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

So - what units are you referring to? You have referred to coastal and riverine ops but I still don't know what ships you feel were available and needed the straights to get in.

The Germans disassembled some vessels, reassembled them on the Danube and sailed them down the river to the Black sea.

But other than the Romanian Naval vessels that were there, no ships such as DDs could get there and beligerants were not allowed through the straits - only neutral combat vessels.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

So - what units are you referring to? You have referred to coastal and riverine ops but I still don't know what ships you feel were available and needed the straights to get in.

For a hypothetical squadron, on the minimum end any two Italian heavy cruisers and a smattering of destroyers (or the older light cruisers) would be sufficient to give the Soviets serious problems. There's nothing there that can directly challenge a Gangut, but I think that's fine given the challenges with operating a ship of that size without Odessa or Sevastopol

I don't think you'd want to commit the larger Italian capital ships, but any of the reconstructed battleships would solve that problem.

More generally, the advantage of the straits would be that you've a convoy route under an Axis air bubble, running from Italy to Rostov-on-Don once the Axis advance gets to that point and can run those convoys with larger ships (with larger capacity) than you would be able to if depending on the existing coastal trade.

In turn, that takes a lot of pressure of the rail network for Axis operations elsewhere in the Soviet Union.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: fcooke

So - what units are you referring to? You have referred to coastal and riverine ops but I still don't know what ships you feel were available and needed the straights to get in.

For a hypothetical squadron, on the minimum end any two Italian heavy cruisers and a smattering of destroyers (or the older light cruisers) would be sufficient to give the Soviets serious problems. There's nothing there that can directly challenge a Gangut, but I think that's fine given the challenges with operating a ship of that size without Odessa or Sevastopol

I don't think you'd want to commit the larger Italian capital ships, but any of the reconstructed battleships would solve that problem.

More generally, the advantage of the straits would be that you've a convoy route under an Axis air bubble, running from Italy to Rostov-on-Don once the Axis advance gets to that point and can run those convoys with larger ships (with larger capacity) than you would be able to if depending on the existing coastal trade.

In turn, that takes a lot of pressure of the rail network for Axis operations elsewhere in the Soviet Union.

Those convoys from Italy to Rostov-on-Don would be subject to Commonwealth interference.

Oh, I forgot. The pragmatic Churchill already had the Allies sign a peace treaty with the Nazis.[8|]

[fcooke]

call me skeptical that a couple of Italian CAs and CLs are really going to cause the USSR Black Sea fleet many problems. It is not like Any Italian CA covered itself in glory in WW2. And there were 40+ USSR subs to take them or any convoys to task.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Mostly small unit stuff. The larger Soviet units were mostly taken out by airpower. The largest Axis unit in the Black Sea was a DD. It is not really a theater I know a lot about, but I still don't see what opening up the straights would allow. Italian units constrained by limited supply of oil, Germany really doesn't have many large units, and the ones they do have are likely best used as Atlantic commerce raiders rather than coastal bombardment units in the Black Sea, especially early war when Germany had nearly complete command of the air. So please expand on what you think controlling the straights would allow? I am curious. thanks.

warspite1

I'd be interested in this too. The only way the straits make a difference is if the Italian navy sails into the Black Sea.

What makes you think the entire Italian Navy would be needed?

The Soviet Black Sea Fleet is a formidable formation by Black Sea Standards, but only two of the Soviet capital ships are reasonably modern.

warspite1

What are you talking about? Who said anything about the whole fleet? They wouldn't have had the oil for anything like that. Just using the Italian Fleet as they did, cost the RM its reserves in the first year of the war. But now you want them to double up with this bizarre show.

It is you that is proposing this fantasy trip into Black Sea, it is you that needs to explain what and why.

Stop being fixated on the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, they are largely an irrelevance. The Soviet subs are the danger to any surface vessels the Italians send.

But I ask again:

- Where is the oil coming from?
- What is escorting the Italians (and Germans) to North Africa?
- What are the Italians actually going to do once they get to the Black Sea?
- Why do the Italians suddenly grow a set and traverse the Eastern Med when they wouldn't even do that with German air cover in May 1941?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Worth considering the assumption that the Turkish leadership has the sangfroid to consider fighting it out with the Germans after losing Thrace, Istanbul and likely much of the Aegean portion of Turkey.

warspite1

So you think the Germans would embark on such an attack in the hope that the Turks wouldn't be a tad miffed and fight back? Doesn't sound like much in the way of a coherent plan.

What a silly thing to say.

Diplomatic pragmatism - a nation on the fringes of Europe which has seen significant decline and possessing (at best) a military force of WW1 vintage is attacked by a Central European power that has military hegemony over Europe. Support from allied nations is likely to be limited at best (given the UK has other pressing commitments and the material needed for the Turkish army would be extensive).

In that environment, sticking out a long, protracted and damaging war makes little sense when compared to a negotiated peace that gives time for both extensive rearmament and the potential for the balance of power to shift.

warspite1

Silly?????

I am not the one proposing that Germany invades Turkey in order to claim a small portion of Western Turkey and then relying on the Turks to give in.

Once again, and for the third time:

- The Germans invaded Crete because they were worried about Ploesti. Why is Ploesti being attacked from Turkey not an issue? This is the bulk of Germany's oil!!!!
- Where do the Germans get their Chromium from?
- How do the Germans replace the men that are no longer on the Eastern Front? They didn't have enough men as it is - and now you want less. This is in addition to all the occupation troops you've cost the Germans in Vichy and Spain and North Africa.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




What makes you think the entire Italian Navy would be needed?

The Soviet Black Sea Fleet is a formidable formation by Black Sea Standards, but only two of the Soviet capital ships are reasonably modern.

Modern or not, they would still shoot big shells that go "BOOM!"

Yes, but the problem is getting into a position to fire those big shells. With a speed of 22 knots, it may be deadly but it is far from swift.

warspite1

As said, the Black Sea Fleet aren't coming out all guns blazing. Soviet subs, mines and aircraft however, certainly are.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

I'd be interested in this too. The only way the straits make a difference is if the Italian navy sails into the Black Sea.

What makes you think the entire Italian Navy would be needed?

The Soviet Black Sea Fleet is a formidable formation by Black Sea Standards, but only two of the Soviet capital ships are reasonably modern.

warspite1

What are you talking about? Who said anything about the whole fleet? They wouldn't have had the oil for anything like that. Just using the Italian Fleet as they did, cost the RM its reserves in the first year of the war. But now you want them to double up with this bizarre show.

It is you that is proposing this fantasy trip into Black Sea, it is you that needs to explain what and why.

Stop being fixated on the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, they are largely an irrelevance. The Soviet subs are the danger to any surface vessels the Italians send.

But I ask again:

- Where is the oil coming from?
- What is escorting the Italians (and Germans) to North Africa?
- What are the Italians actually going to do once they get to the Black Sea?
- Why do the Italians suddenly grow a set and traverse the Eastern Med when they wouldn't even do that with German air cover in May 1941?

Any oil that the Italians get from Romania will not make it to Germany.

This would only be feasible if Malta is captured and the Suez Canal is seriously threatened if not blocked. The Royal Navy would not want major ships in the Eastern Med if Malta is captured and the Suez Canal is not usable. There would be no safe place if the Axis keep moving into the Middle East from Axis air power.

Also remember, that the Italians have different goals than the Germans and they are not German Lackeys. In fact, Mussolini wanted the UK and France to ally with Italy when the Germans took Austria - then attack Germany.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

But other than the Romanian Naval vessels that were there, no ships such as DDs could get there and beligerants were not allowed through the straits - only neutral combat vessels.

warspite1

.... lolz.... and THAT is precisely why the straits were so important to the Soviets and the Russians before them..... and why it is inconceivable that Stalin wouldn't have taken action of some description, when German threatened Turkey.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Any oil that the Italians get from Romania will not make it to Germany.

warspite1

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. How are the Italians getting control of Romanian oil over German wishes?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




Modern or not, they would still shoot big shells that go "BOOM!"

Yes, but the problem is getting into a position to fire those big shells. With a speed of 22 knots, it may be deadly but it is far from swift.

warspite1

As said, the Black Sea Fleet aren't coming out all guns blazing. Soviet subs, mines and aircraft however, certainly are.

The Red Fleet with its slow ships could be used as mobile batteries to bombard things on land that don't move and thus are even slower. Especially during the long winter nights when there is little daylight for any air search to find these ships and then get the information to the airbase, get the strike into the air, and attack - with the Red Army fighters defending the fleet. That is, if the searching aircraft are not shot down before reporting the position of said fleet.

I mean, the Red Army used biplanes to bomb at night to great effect, how would a sudden naval bombardment be greeted by the defenders?

Just because someone or something did not do something does not mean that they did not think of it. Just because someone or some people do not think that other people will not do something does not mean that they will not do it. Think of the Pearl Harbor raid, think of the Kamikazi aircraft . . .

Just because it does not make sense to you does not mean that it does not make sense to someone else - especially if they have a different cultural mindset.

[DesertWolf101]

I'm scratching my head here with this discussion. Instead of pondering whether the Germans would be foolish enough to add to their huge number of enemies by invading Turkey (with all the serious additional economic, military, and political problems that would entail for the Reich), a far more interesting (and far less implausible) hypothetical would be to consider what would have happened if Turkey had joined the German cause before Barbarossa. Unlike Franco, there is really very little indication that this was plausible as the Turks were determined to stay neutral, but some interesting scenarios emerge if we suspend some disbelief and assume the Germans were able to build up on the Treaty of Friendship with Turkey into an alliance of sorts.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Any oil that the Italians get from Romania will not make it to Germany.

warspite1

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. How are the Italians getting control of Romanian oil over German wishes?

If the Italian fleet is operating in the Black Sea from the Romanian ports, is it not inconceivable that they would be getting oil or petroleum products directly from Romania? [8|]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

I'm scratching my head here with this discussion. Instead of pondering whether the Germans would be crazy enough to add to their huge number of enemies by invading Turkey (with all the serious additional economic, military, and political problems that would entail for the Reich), a far more interesting (and far less ludicrous) hypothetical would be to consider what would have happened if Turkey had joined the German cause before Barbarossa. Unlike Franco, there is really very little indication that this was plausible as the Turks were determined to stay neutral, but some interesting scenarios emerge if we suspend some disbelief and assume the Germans were able to build up on the Treaty of Friendship with Turkey into an alliance of sorts.

If Turkey would have joined the Axis, I doubt that they would have been getting any more weapons from the Soviet Union not to mention anything that they were getting from the Allies nor to mention the United States. I also think that the Soviet Union would consider this a direct threat since Syria would have been a buffer to direct action against Palestine and Jordan. I do not know what the road system would be like if the Germans tried to go from Turkey to Iraq with a well supplied force.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Yes, but the problem is getting into a position to fire those big shells. With a speed of 22 knots, it may be deadly but it is far from swift.

warspite1

As said, the Black Sea Fleet aren't coming out all guns blazing. Soviet subs, mines and aircraft however, certainly are.

The Red Fleet with its slow ships could be used as mobile batteries to bombard things on land that don't move and thus are even slower. Especially during the long winter nights when there is little daylight for any air search to find these ships and then get the information to the airbase, get the strike into the air, and attack - with the Red Army fighters defending the fleet. That is, if the searching aircraft are not shot down before reporting the position of said fleet.

I mean, the Red Army used biplanes to bomb at night to great effect, how would a sudden naval bombardment be greeted by the defenders?

Just because someone or something did not do something does not mean that they did not think of it. Just because someone or some people do not think that other people will not do something does not mean that they will not do it. Think of the Pearl Harbor raid, think of the Kamikazi aircraft . . .

Just because it does not make sense to you does not mean that it does not make sense to someone else - especially if they have a different cultural mindset.

warspite1

What does that mean? I am basing what the Soviet Black Sea Fleet would likely have done based on the way they were used. That is nothing to do with making sense - it's historical fact. If you believe that the Soviet Black Sea Fleet was in a condition to conduct fleet manoeuvres on the high sea against an Italian Fleet then fine you think that. Whatever floats your boat.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Any oil that the Italians get from Romania will not make it to Germany.

warspite1

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. How are the Italians getting control of Romanian oil over German wishes?

If the Italian fleet is operating in the Black Sea from the Romanian ports, is it not inconceivable that they would be getting oil or petroleum products directly from Romania? [8|]

warspite1

The Germans would have the final say on this additional oil. If the Germans requested the Italians into the Black Sea (and if the Italians accepted) then oil would have to be made available. Whether that oil is delivered in Italy at the outset or in Romania or other points en-route - the Germans will have the final say on what goes where.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

As said, the Black Sea Fleet aren't coming out all guns blazing. Soviet subs, mines and aircraft however, certainly are.

The Red Fleet with its slow ships could be used as mobile batteries to bombard things on land that don't move and thus are even slower. Especially during the long winter nights when there is little daylight for any air search to find these ships and then get the information to the airbase, get the strike into the air, and attack - with the Red Army fighters defending the fleet. That is, if the searching aircraft are not shot down before reporting the position of said fleet.

I mean, the Red Army used biplanes to bomb at night to great effect, how would a sudden naval bombardment be greeted by the defenders?

Just because someone or something did not do something does not mean that they did not think of it. Just because someone or some people do not think that other people will not do something does not mean that they will not do it. Think of the Pearl Harbor raid, think of the Kamikazi aircraft . . .

Just because it does not make sense to you does not mean that it does not make sense to someone else - especially if they have a different cultural mindset.

warspite1

What does that mean? I am basing what the Soviet Black Sea Fleet would likely have done based on the way they were used. That is nothing to do with making sense - it's historical fact. If you believe that the Soviet Black Sea Fleet was in a condition to conduct fleet manoeuvres on the high sea against an Italian Fleet then fine you think that. Whatever floats your boat.

If you can not comprehend what that means when I am not capable of explaining it to you.

Just because something was not done historically does not mean that it could not nor would not have been done.

I have no boat to float. [:(]