OT:German imports from Spain/Turkey?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It would be helpful if you used the quote function warspite. It helps illustrate what was actually said.

warspite1

Well I’m sure it would but equally I’m sure we both know what was actually said – unless of course one of us wants to resort to silly word games……

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Then why did you make this claim in post #114?

warspite1

Because you know full well it was a little exaggeration for effect. Your comments about the lack of importance of the Romanian oil to the German war economy are so mind-numbingly inane that this didn’t seem out of place

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. When did the war end in Europe?

warspite1

You know exactly what I am getting at. You have tried to make the rather silly point that my saying ‘No Romanian Oil - No war’ was wrong because the war continued after the loss of Ploesti – as if that matters in the slightest.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

No, that's not what I said. I suggest you revisit post #102. I think we can both agree that there were other Axis strategic considerations other than Ploesti.

warspite1

You said “Axis strategy doesn't revolve around Ploesti alone”. Well I am quite sure that there was rather a lot for the Axis strategists to consider. You know, when deciding whether or not to go to war then there a myriad of things to consider. Now, when ranking those things to consider where, in 1939 do you believe that one’s main source of oil ranks in the overall consideration stakes?

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

For fantasy, you're indulging in a fair few flights yourself regarding Ploesti. Specifically:

1. The Allies forces are going to have the full benefit of hindsight in attacking the oil plants as a priority over other targets.
2. Allied attacks are going to be able to destroy 100% of oil production at Ploesti.

warspite1

This is unfortunate as it simply evidences a total lack of understanding on your part. The whole Ploesti point came up as yet another counter to your preposterous limited invasion of Turkey routine. I did not say that the Allies could destroy Ploesti – whether 100% or otherwise. I did not need to because that wasn’t the point.

The point – and I can’t even believe I am having to explain this – is that Hitler was deeply concerned by Ploesti’s vulnerability. So much so that he had to get involved in Greece and then order the invasion of Crete. BUT you think that Hitler would have sanctioned your ridiculous Turkish (part) invasion, and so bring Ploesti into range and that would not concern him?

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The link above has a chapter on the campaigns against oil centres, which covers this. German mechanized forces, to be blunt, stop operating. The landsers might plod along with their horse-drawn transport, but the mobile fire brigades cease to exist.

warspite1

An answer that really does you no favours. Maybe it’s an attempt at humour, may be this is you being facetious? I don’t know.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Again, please point out where that was said. I refer you back to post #107

warspite1

Unfortunately because of your answer above, I am actually more of the opinion that you didn’t mean to say what I accused you of. Instead, unless you are trying to be funny, you actually meant that as a serious comment. You are actually not saying that the loss of Romanian oil pre-Barbarossa would mean no war. You are actually saying that Hitler would go to war 1900 styleee. Your credibility was shaky with the invasion of Spain/comments on Vichy stuff, really started wobbling with the whole part-invasion of Turkey rubbish, then started rocking back and forth on the ropes with Italians in the Black Sea malarchy. But then has hit the deck with this….

Listen. No Romanian oil = No war.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What do you define as any sensible measure?

warspite1

Well it’s a shame this question was left to the end. Let’s see now. What would be a sensible measure of whether Hitler would take Germany into a war?

Erm… have we got enough reserves of oil? That would be a fairly sensible measure wouldn’t it?

Do we have adequate sources of replacement oil? There, that’s another sensible consideration right there?

If we rely on circa 50%-60% of our oil on just one source (and our ally rely 100% on this source) should we ensure first and foremost that it is not vulnerable to destruction? How about that for a sensible bit of forward planning?

Well there’s three sensible measures right off the bat. Not difficult was it?

Yes, the security of one’s main source of oil is pretty important. No Romanian oil = No war.

Now, hopefully you’ve stopped playing silly word games and you can start answering some basic questions on the subject at hand and that, in many cases have been asked more than once and by more than one person.

[RangerJoe]

Did you know that French milk was dumped on the ground after the Franco-German Armistice because there was not enough fuel to bring it to either a market or a factory for further processing? I guess that Germany had food to waste . . . [8|]

[mind_messing]

Well I’m sure it would but equally I’m sure we both know what was actually said – unless of course one of us wants to resort to silly word games……

I find it quite revealing that this is "silly word games" to you.

Because you know full well it was a little exaggeration for effect.

Is that a regular feature?

Your comments about the lack of importance of the Romanian oil to the German war economy are so mind-numbingly inane that this didn’t seem out of place

I made an audible sigh reading this. Nuance is lost on you.

Synthetic oil plats providing much of the heavy lifting =/= Romanian oil being unimportant.

You know exactly what I am getting at. You have tried to make the rather silly point that my saying ‘No Romanian Oil - No war’ was wrong because the war continued after the loss of Ploesti – as if that matters in the slightest.

To be frank, the silliness lies in your gross oversimplification.

You said “Axis strategy doesn't revolve around Ploesti alone”. Well I am quite sure that there was rather a lot for the Axis strategists to consider. You know, when deciding whether or not to go to war then there a myriad of things to consider. Now, when ranking those things to consider where, in 1939 do you believe that one’s main source of oil ranks in the overall consideration stakes?

That's a two-fold process.

On the one hand there is the strategic planning element, in essence, what is the nature of the war you are planning on fighting, who with, and the likely length of the war.

The other aspect is a risk management exercise, identifying how important and exposed to risk areas are, and then acting appropriately to mitigate the risks to those areas given the available assets. Hence why you see fighters and flak guns in the Ruhr and not Romania.

This is unfortunate as it simply evidences a total lack of understanding on your part. The whole Ploesti point came up as yet another counter to your preposterous limited invasion of Turkey routine. I did not say that the Allies could destroy Ploesti – whether 100% or otherwise. I did not need to because that wasn’t the point.

In post #118 you propose a scenario whereby Ploesti's production is removed.

How else is this to be achieved, beyond either Red Army occupation or by strategic bombing?

The point – and I can’t even believe I am having to explain this – is that Hitler was deeply concerned by Ploesti’s vulnerability. So much so that he had to get involved in Greece and then order the invasion of Crete. BUT you think that Hitler would have sanctioned your ridiculous Turkish (part) invasion, and so bring Ploesti into range and that would not concern him?

You may be aware that Hitler had views that one might call irrational.

An answer that really does you no favours. Maybe it’s an attempt at humour, may be this is you being facetious? I don’t know.

With you, there's always humour

Unfortunately because of your answer above, I am actually more of the opinion that you didn’t mean to say what I accused you of. Instead, unless you are trying to be funny, you actually meant that as a serious comment. You are actually not saying that the loss of Romanian oil pre-Barbarossa would mean no war. You are actually saying that Hitler would go to war 1900 styleee. Your credibility was shaky with the invasion of Spain/comments on Vichy stuff, really started wobbling with the whole part-invasion of Turkey rubbish, then started rocking back and forth on the ropes with Italians in the Black Sea malarchy. But then has hit the deck with this….

So there's a few things to unpack here that I'll take in order.

War 1900 style: In 1939, there's no clear-cut guide on how modern war between major military powers will work. Events in the 30's provided some insights, but the details were unclear. The bulk of fighting duties (and this is true for almost all the major powers) was drawn from infantry formations backed up by artillery. In this respect from 1900, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Spain: there are advantages and disadvantages to German intervention in Spain. I don't see the Spanish defeating an attacking German force.

Vichy: I think the weakness of the Vichy position has not been fully explored. I don't see Spain as being a line in the sand (especially as it will remove concerns of Franco's ambitions on French possessions in Africa), and the diplomatic isolation is quite severe after Mers-el-Kebir. Fundamentally, I place less value on the French fleet that was done historically, which changes the balance to a significant degree.

As for the wider discussion, I think you're just determined not to consider the potential scenarios resulting from a Mediterranean-centric Axis strategy.

Well it’s a shame this question was left to the end. Let’s see now. What would be a sensible measure of whether Hitler would take Germany into a war?

Erm… have we got enough reserves of oil? That would be a fairly sensible measure wouldn’t it?

Do we have adequate sources of replacement oil? There, that’s another sensible consideration right there?

If we rely on circa 50%-60% of our oil on just one source (and our ally rely 100% on this source) should we ensure first and foremost that it is not vulnerable to destruction? How about that for a sensible bit of forward planning?

Well there’s three sensible measures right off the bat. Not difficult was it?

Yes, the security of one’s main source of oil is pretty important. No Romanian oil = No war.

Again, what constitutes sufficient reserves? Six months, a year? Remember, bulk storage isn't quite what it is today.

What constitutes proper forward planning? Are we leaving the Ruhr undefended to cover the oil? What about the cities?

Feel free to reply, but I'll be indulging your insistence on having the last word in this case.

[fcooke]

Well, oil reserves were a primary reason for Japan to go to war in WW2, and certainly constrained the other Axis powers in their operations. And there were a number of B-24 crews who would debate that Ploesti wasn't well defended. In fact, one of the big misses on the part of the Allies in WW2 was missing how strained the fuel situation was for the Axis and not targeting it sooner. Not many countries converted vehicles to run on coal. Germany did.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

....And there were a number of B-24 crews who would debate that Ploesti wasn't well defended.

warspite1

Honestly you can't make it up

Hence why you see fighters and flak guns in the Ruhr and not Romania.

Apparently there were no AA defences or fighter defences around Ploesti.....good.... grief....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Feel free to reply, but I'll be indulging your insistence on having the last word in this case.

warspite1

Believe me I don't have the energy to deal with your inane ramblings (that last set of responses was just a sea of white noise) or your disingenuous debating style any longer.

[RangerJoe]

While petroleum storage back then was not what it is today, neither was its usage.

Boots on the ground equal control, you can't use a tank to clear out buildings if you want them intact. Infantry use artillery to help them. Tanks in built up area are vulnerable to infantry. Air units can't hold the ground.

The British did convert their units to motorized formations except for certain Commonwealth Horse Cavalry type units. So they did see problems with a horse transported army.