The question to ask about The Italians

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well just about everything I've read about Spain post the Civil War mentions the damage caused to the infrastructure and transport links. This is a nice pretty map - but I wonder how many rail lines were up and running, I wonder how much rolling stock and locomotives were actually in service.

This is another example of you wanting, from Germany's point of view, the good (the armed forces are in no fit state to fight) but won't take any bad (the country's infrastructure and services have been devastated).

Of course they would have to repair the rail lines.
warspite1

Who? When?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You've mentioned five points above, but you've missed the one that kicks all this off - and one that Curtis Lemay refuses to expand upon even though this is his scenario. Hitler has been persuaded to move south (a major volte face but let's go with it). Is it really feasible that the UK is left alone, completely untouched, while the Luftwaffe 'demonstrate' (whatever that means)?

Let's be honest no, it's most unlikely, but we know why he doesn't want to agree to that. We know that any Luftwaffe attempt to attack the UK by air will fail - and moreover will be costly. That doesn't fit his scenario.

I've asked for thoughts but suspect that there is insufficient interest in the topic to get any response - which is fair enough. But that is fine, Curtis Lemay's scenario has piqued my interest and I will continue to post.

I've said from the getgo that there will be no BoB. I still think that just the presence of the huge force left on the channel border, the accumulation of barges, and any sort of activity by the remaining Luftwaffe will be enough to prevent the British from committing more than a token force to Spain. Regardless, even if the entire British army on Britain is committed, there will then be no threat left for France, and most of what was on the channel can be committed to Spain.
warspite1

But you are totally missing the point. WHY is there no BoB? We know why it happened in real life - and it wasn't because of Sea Lion, which Goering couldn't give a fig about. So for BoB not to happen in your scenario you are, once again and for no purpose (other than Axis fanboisism), making Goering into a completely different animal.

As said, if you want to play total fantasy why not war game the LoTR vs GoT? There has to be a measure of realism or what's the point?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You've mentioned five points above, but you've missed the one that kicks all this off - and one that Curtis Lemay refuses to expand upon even though this is his scenario. Hitler has been persuaded to move south (a major volte face but let's go with it). Is it really feasible that the UK is left alone, completely untouched, while the Luftwaffe 'demonstrate' (whatever that means)?

Let's be honest no, it's most unlikely, but we know why he doesn't want to agree to that. We know that any Luftwaffe attempt to attack the UK by air will fail - and moreover will be costly. That doesn't fit his scenario.

I've asked for thoughts but suspect that there is insufficient interest in the topic to get any response - which is fair enough. But that is fine, Curtis Lemay's scenario has piqued my interest and I will continue to post.

I've said from the getgo that there will be no BoB. I still think that just the presence of the huge force left on the channel border, the accumulation of barges, and any sort of activity by the remaining Luftwaffe will be enough to prevent the British from committing more than a token force to Spain. Regardless, even if the entire British army on Britain is committed, there will then be no threat left for France, and most of what was on the channel can be committed to Spain.
warspite1

....is a total cop out. 'Any sort of activity'? KanalKampf was 'any sort of activity' wasn't it? And what did Dowding do? "To hell with that, stop the convoys we aren't playing on your terms Fritz" or words to that effect.

So NO 'any sort of activity' won't wash. The British are simply going to sit in Blighty and build up. That is not something the Germans will allow to happen and it is total dreamland to think they would.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Germany would have taken out the BEF at Dunkirk with the Panzers,
warspite1

....or if Gamelin hadn't gone for the Breda Variant or Loerzer listened to von Kleist or Guderian remained sacked or many of the German panzer commanders not disobeyed orders [:)].....
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The paratroopers in transports form up like a bomber force attacking England
warspite1

How many Ju-52 did the Germans lose in Holland, Belgium and France? I'd be interested to know how many they had left for any such major operation, where they would be needed for all sorts of tasks including supply. Let's be clear - no where near enough.

According to Schenk, there were enough for the 7th FliegerDivision but none to spare (and insufficient gliders anyway) to allow the 22nd Air Landing to be used. So enough for the 7th but that is without all these other tasks they are being assigned. Holland and Belgium - even with limited air defence - also shows just how vulnerable these precious aircraft were. 50% were lost in Holland alone....
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

behind a real bomber force hitting the radar installations
warspite1

But that re-writes history and assumes the Germans understood radar and that they couldn't hit the towers once and that was it. Let's be clear. They didn't. And Radar remained operational.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

then a quick paradrop to capture at least one airfield.
warspite1

More paras and more Ju-52....wow. Given that the Germans aren't going to put radar out, what are the RAF doing at this point?
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

with a few barges loaded and coming across the channel to grab some beach front property.
warspite1

When do these barges - moving at circa 3 knots - have to leave port to make it to this beach front property? Isn't that a kind of long range warning sign right there?
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The air base would have fuel, supplies, and ground personnel for Luftwaffe planes that need help but they don't need to be based there, just stage them from France and top off the fighters fuel cells. This would effectively enhance their range, provide more time over the target, avoid the Channel radars, and hopefully save air crews from capture from aircraft that would otherwise be lost over the Channel.

The ground troops would consolidate their positions and enhance them. They would move out and try to get at least one airbase away from the coast so it would not be under Naval bombardment. More troops, supplies, and equipment would be flown in to increase their lodgement. If necessary, Luftwaffe bombers could also bring in supplies or just paradrop them although they might be needed as flying artillery.
warspite1

Sorry where have all these troops come from? Not to mention the fuel and supplies and ground personnel?
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

With mines laid in a corridor in the Channel with U-boats and E-boats, that could hamper the RN a little bit.
warspite1

Do the Royal Navy have any say in all this?... or Bomber Command?
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Especially if the Kriegsmarine staged a breakout attempt with some heavy surface raiders to distract the Royal Navy.
warspite1

Lolzer. After Norway, which heavy surface raiders are these exactly? Have you seen what the Germans had intact and undamaged in June/July/August 1940?
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Little Bennie wanted in, Italy should have consulted with Germany and arranged plans for Gibralter, Malta, and the Suez/Port Said.
warspite1

I'd love to have seen this. Firstly the British allow any old unidentified merchant vessel into these ports? And allow any old unidentified ship into the canal itself?

How many troops get ashore, what equipment can they possibly have, and how do they get re-supplied? What are the British troops doing in the meantime?

Which of these three operations is going to get any Regia Marina support? This is the RM without the Littorios and the two Andrea Dorias just coming back into service.

If only the Italians had tried that......



Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by TulliusDetritus »

Somebody contain Warspite, please.

Churchill himself says in his memoirs that a bold coup de main was absolutely possible ;)

He thought the RN could more or less intercept the second, third waves though.

I mentioned Nimitz stating a similar (and apparently weird to us) idea. The objective fact: these guys were commanders in chief.

The gamble here is clear. The 300.000 men rescued at Dunkirk are just mussolinesque "8 million bayonets" until the industry can arm them ;)

The mighty Wehrmacht could have even sacrificed *at sea* let's say a couple of divisions or one corps. All there was in front is a "8 million bayonets" aka a paper tiger ;)

And as Clausewitz puts it, war is a very dangerous business. German divisions in Kent and somehow things start going downhill ;)

Which is why Churchill and Nimitz said what they said, surprising to us armchair vodka / whisky aficionados from the *future*

‌And don't get me started with the air forces. The pacific conflict always interested me more, because it has all sorts of operations. I was surprised to find German pilots were really good at killing ships. These guys were not even naval pilots and yet they managed to sinks lots of British DDs (ie Greece operations). So I pity these DDs trying to intercept the giant German armada.
‌
The British pilots on the other hand, were *not* that good at killing ships. Except of course a few naval specialists aka Taranto ;)

‌So here's the gamble. Prepare your gardening tools. Start raising dozens (no cheap worthless excuses now) of divisions, and form defensive lines all the way to Scotland, evacuating your industry in the process. In other words, do what STAVKA successfully did or die. Except you lack space and god knows what's going to happen when the Wehrmacht swallows the first line, trapping let's say 10 divisions. And so on and so on.

It's this or a miserable German failure.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
UP844
Posts: 1672
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:10 pm
Location: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by UP844 »

1) The British ground forces were not limited to those evacuated from Dunkirk.

2) As for RAF pilots, they sunk approximately half the merchant ships sunk on the Italy to Libya/Tunisia routes in 1940-43. Perhaps they would have sunk more if they had dive bombers. I dare think barges would have been far easier targets than merchant vessels.

3) Even though the Germans managed to establish a beachead in Kent, any air support would have to deal with an intact RAF (forget those Stukas).

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

Long Range Fire (A7.22)........1/2 FP
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by TulliusDetritus »

The second biggest gamble of all, after Barbarossa. I assume they should be doing what the Japanese did (to minimise losses), assemble everything, big fishing boats included, anything that floats. So not only barges.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19526
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by RangerJoe »

Great, my initial response timed out. Someone asked for options, so here we go again:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Germany would have taken out the BEF at Dunkirk with the Panzers,
warspite1

....or if Gamelin hadn't gone for the Breda Variant or Loerzer listened to von Kleist or Guderian remained sacked or many of the German panzer commanders not disobeyed orders [:)].....

All other things the same except the German panzers and the rest of the army at Dunkirk continues to advance. Then, some armour - maybe even a panzer division - refits.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The paratroopers in transports form up like a bomber force attacking England
warspite1

How many Ju-52 did the Germans lose in Holland, Belgium and France? I'd be interested to know how many they had left for any such major operation, where they would be needed for all sorts of tasks including supply. Let's be clear - no where near enough.

According to Schenk, there were enough for the 7th FliegerDivision but none to spare (and insufficient gliders anyway) to allow the 22nd Air Landing to be used. So enough for the 7th but that is without all these other tasks they are being assigned. Holland and Belgium - even with limited air defence - also shows just how vulnerable these precious aircraft were. 50% were lost in Holland alone....

The Ju-90 could carry 40 passengers, not many built only about 18 or so but some were still around. It had a door for vehicles and heavy cargo.

Some 276 FW Condors built, maybe not all yet, but they could carry 26 passengers.

So, those two aircraft should at least be able to carry half that many paratroopers - maybe more since they would not need to have that much fuel.

The German glider could carry 9 men and 270 kg or 600 lbs of equipment. It could do a 80 degree dive, land, and stop within 60 meters. Or it could carry 1200 kgs or 2600 pounds of cargo. They are reusable. This could be towed by a Me-109 or a Ju-87.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

behind a real bomber force hitting the radar installations
warspite1

But that re-writes history and assumes the Germans understood radar and that they couldn't hit the towers once and that was it. Let's be clear. They didn't. And Radar remained operational.

They understood radar and had some of their own although not as good. But keep attacking the sites, even use gliders to land troops to destroy them. Get back to the glider, load the air brake or cut the cords, send up a balloon if need be to have an aircraft grab the tow rope and take off. That is, if there was no suitable emergency landing and take off strip nearby.

Just make a gap in the radar coverage so the British don't see what is forming up over France and when. The the British would have to rely on ground observers or air craft in flight to see the Luftwaffe aircraft - any aircraft could then be shot down as well.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

then a quick paradrop to capture at least one airfield.
warspite1

More paras and more Ju-52....wow. Given that the Germans aren't going to put radar out, what are the RAF doing at this point?

The RAF is reacting. If the radar is put out as mentioned above, then the RAF will have to have a standing CAP which can be targeted a well.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

with a few barges loaded and coming across the channel to grab some beach front property.
warspite1

When do these barges - moving at circa 3 knots - have to leave port to make it to this beach front property? Isn't that a kind of long range warning sign right there?

Not if they set out at night. If they practice loading, shifting the barges, then unloading, it might lull the British. Then, one night, the barges start across landing tanks, artillery, other vehicles, more men, and supplies.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The air base would have fuel, supplies, and ground personnel for Luftwaffe planes that need help but they don't need to be based there, just stage them from France and top off the fighters fuel cells. This would effectively enhance their range, provide more time over the target, avoid the Channel radars, and hopefully save air crews from capture from aircraft that would otherwise be lost over the Channel.

The ground troops would consolidate their positions and enhance them. They would move out and try to get at least one airbase away from the coast so it would not be under Naval bombardment. More troops, supplies, and equipment would be flown in to increase their lodgment. If necessary, Luftwaffe bombers could also bring in supplies or just paradrop them although they might be needed as flying artillery.
warspite1

Sorry where have all these troops come from? Not to mention the fuel and supplies and ground personnel?

These would be the initial landing troops. The distance is not all that far and the Ju-52s could make more than one trip per day. Paratroopers could also drop out of the bomb bay of bombers, which could also drop supplies and equipment. With an air field in possession, it gets even easier and more can be landed and offloaded since no parachutes would be needed.

Any trucks, cars, tractors, horses with wagons or carts captured would be used by the Germans.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

With mines laid in a corridor in the Channel with U-boats and E-boats, that could hamper the RN a little bit.
warspite1

Do the Royal Navy have any say in all this?... or Bomber Command?

Yes, they do. But most of the Royal Navy is not in the area or it would be bombed. Bomber command would try and interfere but they would run into Me-109s and Me-110s. Those could ruin a bombers whole day.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Especially if the Kriegsmarine staged a breakout attempt with some heavy surface raiders to distract the Royal Navy.
warspite1

Lolzer. After Norway, which heavy surface raiders are these exactly? Have you seen what the Germans had intact and undamaged in June/July/August 1940?

Temporary repairs could be made, then the ships could sail and do so in order to be seen. The Royal Navy may not know the extent of the damage and would have to react accordingly. So would Coastal Command. Hopefully, the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean weather patterns would help hide the fact that the Kriegsmarine is not there. The Royal Navy could also sail into freshly laid minefields with U-boats patrolling. The U-boats then go south to the Channel area.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Little Bennie wanted in, Italy should have consulted with Germany and arranged plans for Gibralter, Malta, and the Suez/Port Said.
warspite1

I'd love to have seen this. Firstly the British allow any old unidentified merchant vessel into these ports? And allow any old unidentified ship into the canal itself?

Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet. These could either appear to be normal troop movements to/from East Africa or a civilian passenger liner stopping at The Rock. Spanish dock workers could either be co-opted or even some Italians pretending to be Spanish could have checked out the defenses at The Rock.

How many troops get ashore, what equipment can they possibly have, and how do they get re-supplied? What are the British troops doing in the meantime?

For the Rock, either be ashore as tourists who pick up some stashed weapons deposited there by Spaniards or Italians pretending to be Spaniards or troops debarking from passenger liners in uniforms with weapons. Do so through the cargo hatch so they would not be seen on deck. The defenses would be lightly manned most likely.

For the Suez, it could simply be a ship leaving mines behind until it sinks in the Canal to block it. That could render it unusable for a few days. The Royal Navy would not be able to reinforce or retreat easily until the Canal was cleared unless it decided to run the gauntlet of the Central Med.


Which of these three operations is going to get any Regia Marina support? This is the RM without the Littorios and the two Andrea Dorias just coming back into service.

First and foremost would be Malta where there was already a plan:
Invasion plan DG10/42
Italian battleship Giulio Cesare firing during the Battle of Calabria, on 9 July 1940

In 1938 Mussolini had considered an invasion of Malta under Plan DG10/42, in which a force of 40,000 men would capture the island. Nearly all 80 purpose-built sea craft that would land the Italian Army ashore were expected to be lost but landings would be made in the north, with an attack upon the Victoria Lines, across the centre of the island. A secondary landing would be made on Gozo, north-west of Malta and the islet of Comino, between the two. All of the Italian navy and 500 aircraft would be involved, but the lack of supplies led the planners to believe that the operation could not be carried out. With the German success in the Battle of France from May–June 1940, the plan was reduced to 20,000 men with the addition of tanks. The Allied defeat in France gave the Italians an opportunity to seize Malta but Italian intelligence overestimated the Maltese defences and Mussolini thought that an invasion would be unnecessary once Britain made peace. Mussolini also expected Francoist Spain to join the Axis and capture Gibraltar, which would close the Mediterranean to the British from the west.[36]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... mber_1940)

The supplies could have been found and be waiting. The 10th Army could have stayed put and thus would have had the supplies where they were at. The 5th Army could also have stayed where it was at so no supplies needed for moving. With the Royal Navy at either end of the Med, there was only one monitor and two gunboats at Malta.

There were six Sea Gladiators assembled and six more to be assembled. Three of these were named Faith, Hope, and Charity. Not much air cover against the Italian Air Force. There was one airfield almost completed.

There were 4 regular infantry battalions and one territorial infantry battalion. There may have been some light armour besides Bren carriers. They may have been two artillery regiments of 24 guns each, one of 18 pounders and one of 25 pounders. The coastal defense guns could not fire too much against land targets.


If only the Italians had tried that......

True. If the Italians had tried that in the Med and were successful in a blitz, then two German Panzer divisions and two Motorized divisions along with good () Italian armoured formations and mobile infantry formations, then Egypt may have been captured. That would make the Eastern Med secure and Central Med more secure. If Gibraltar could be quickly captured, the entire Med would be secure except for any possible Vichy French action.

The airborne landings in England would be a blitz type along with the force sent across the Channel to grab some beachfront property. But the British would be surprised and the Royal Navy would be out of position. As long as the Germans could get an airfield away from British Naval bombardment and kept operating otherwise, then more men, equipment, and supplies could be flown in.

Do these operations fast and surprise is on your side. Negate the British radar and lessen the distance that the Luftwaffe is from a safe place to land and it takes away the biggest RAF advantage.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19526
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by RangerJoe »

Apparently some of the armour arrived in November of 1940.
. . . Tank support was provided by the 1st Independent Troop of the Royal Tank Regiment, disembarked in November 1940, which was initially equipped with four Matilda II Infantry Tanks, armed with 2-pounder (40 mm) guns, and two Vickers Mk.VIC light tanks, armed with two machine guns (part of detachments from the 7th Royal Tank Regiment and the 3rd The King's Own Hussars). . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Herkules
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Somebody contain Warspite, please.
warspite1

[8|]
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Churchill himself says in his memoirs that a bold coup de main was absolutely possible ;)
warspite1

Churchill said lots of things (see your comment below about Nimitz). When this scenario starts with the Germans stopping the evacuation at Dunkirk then already we've move outside history massively.
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

He thought the RN could more or less intercept the second, third waves though.
warspite1

So the first wave would have been invulnerable to anything - coastal guns, aircraft and the small craft of the RN?
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I mentioned Nimitz stating a similar (and apparently weird to us) idea.
warspite1

Exactly. Thank-you for making my point for me.
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The gamble here is clear. The 300.000 men rescued at Dunkirk are just mussolinesque "8 million bayonets" until the industry can arm them ;)
warspite1

As with Curtis Lemay, please get your facts right before spouting off. 300,000? and how many of these were actually British and not French that returned to France
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The mighty Wehrmacht could have even sacrificed *at sea* let's say a couple of divisions or one corps. All there was in front is a "8 million bayonets" aka a paper tiger ;)
warspite1

Wow....so you are saying a whole German corps could have been lost at sea... just how many barges do you think the Germans had? Once they are lost, they are lost. There is then no follow-up waves, there is no re-supply. A whole corps? Get a grip.

Oh and by the way, this scenario assumes a quick coup de main after France (when the British Army were in the worst condition). So the conversion of the barges so that they could land tanks, vehicles etc - when did all that take place?....
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

German divisions in Kent and somehow things start going downhill ;)
warspite1

And no one would argue. A supplied and meaningful German force would likely mean the end of the UK. But they still haven't got there under this scenario.
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

‌And don't get me started with the air forces. These guys were not even naval pilots and yet they managed to sinks lots of British DDs (ie Greece operations). So I pity these DDs trying to intercept the giant German armada.
warspite1

Right..... so exactly what air cover did the RN have off Crete?

And its going to take the German Armada about 36 hours iirc to get from France to the UK (assuming the tide is with them, that there are no snags given there's been no time to practice any of this. A thousand plus barges, sailing at night, closely packed. So no chance of accidents, collisions? No chances of wires getting crossed? All according to you, would definitely go smoothly..... of course.

BTW, why are all these German aircraft in the sky at night?
‌
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The British pilots on the other hand, were *not* that good at killing ships.
warspite1

Lolz... Well how many times did the RN put their ships in harms way without air cover? How many times did the Germans? With what is being proposed here we would get to see wouldn't we? Although the Germans would have air cover at least.
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

‌So here's the gamble.

It's this or a miserable German failure.
warspite1

Exactly. It's a gamble. And even Hitler, the great gambler, didn't think it could be pulled off - nor did Raeder and nor did Goering.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: UP844

1) The British ground forces were not limited to those evacuated from Dunkirk.
warspite1

Correct. But whichever way you slice it, there was a distinct lack of heavy weapons.
ORIGINAL: UP844

2) As for RAF pilots, they sunk approximately half the merchant ships sunk on the Italy to Libya/Tunisia routes in 1940-43.
warspite1

I'd like to see a source for that. That figure is way too high. Unless the Tunisian Campaign skews things, but 1940-42 sorry but no.
ORIGINAL: UP844

Perhaps they would have sunk more if they had dive bombers. I dare think barges would have been far easier targets than merchant vessels.
warspite1

The British had dive bombers. Old, obsolete crappy dive-bombers, but dive bombers nonetheless.

Indeed the Skuas of 800 and 803 Squadrons sunk the Konigsberg - the first ship sunk by dive bombers and indeed the first warship sunk by air attack.

Yes, very closely packed, low lying (any big wave would swamp them), slow moving barges being towed, would have been juicy targets for MTB, fighter straffing, bombers, destroyers etc.
ORIGINAL: UP844

3) Even though the Germans managed to establish a beachead in Kent, any air support would have to deal with an intact RAF (forget those Stukas).
warspite1

Quite. Although the RAF seems to have been forgotten by some people.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Great, my initial response timed out. Someone asked for options, so here we go again:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Germany would have taken out the BEF at Dunkirk with the Panzers,
warspite1

....or if Gamelin hadn't gone for the Breda Variant or Loerzer listened to von Kleist or Guderian remained sacked or many of the German panzer commanders not disobeyed orders [:)].....

POINT 1 Points answered below

All other things the same except the German panzers and the rest of the army at Dunkirk continues to advance. Then, some armour - maybe even a panzer division - refits.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The paratroopers in transports form up like a bomber force attacking England
warspite1

How many Ju-52 did the Germans lose in Holland, Belgium and France? I'd be interested to know how many they had left for any such major operation, where they would be needed for all sorts of tasks including supply. Let's be clear - no where near enough.

According to Schenk, there were enough for the 7th FliegerDivision but none to spare (and insufficient gliders anyway) to allow the 22nd Air Landing to be used. So enough for the 7th but that is without all these other tasks they are being assigned. Holland and Belgium - even with limited air defence - also shows just how vulnerable these precious aircraft were. 50% were lost in Holland alone....

POINT 2

The Ju-90 could carry 40 passengers, not many built only about 18 or so but some were still around. It had a door for vehicles and heavy cargo.

Some 276 FW Condors built, maybe not all yet, but they could carry 26 passengers.

So, those two aircraft should at least be able to carry half that many paratroopers - maybe more since they would not need to have that much fuel.

The German glider could carry 9 men and 270 kg or 600 lbs of equipment. It could do a 80 degree dive, land, and stop within 60 meters. Or it could carry 1200 kgs or 2600 pounds of cargo. They are reusable. This could be towed by a Me-109 or a Ju-87.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

behind a real bomber force hitting the radar installations
warspite1

But that re-writes history and assumes the Germans understood radar and that they couldn't hit the towers once and that was it. Let's be clear. They didn't. And Radar remained operational.

POINT 3

They understood radar and had some of their own although not as good. But keep attacking the sites, even use gliders to land troops to destroy them. Get back to the glider, load the air brake or cut the cords, send up a balloon if need be to have an aircraft grab the tow rope and take off. That is, if there was no suitable emergency landing and take off strip nearby.

Just make a gap in the radar coverage so the British don't see what is forming up over France and when. The the British would have to rely on ground observers or air craft in flight to see the Luftwaffe aircraft - any aircraft could then be shot down as well.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

then a quick paradrop to capture at least one airfield.
warspite1

More paras and more Ju-52....wow. Given that the Germans aren't going to put radar out, what are the RAF doing at this point?

POINT 4

The RAF is reacting. If the radar is put out as mentioned above, then the RAF will have to have a standing CAP which can be targeted a well.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

with a few barges loaded and coming across the channel to grab some beach front property.
warspite1

When do these barges - moving at circa 3 knots - have to leave port to make it to this beach front property? Isn't that a kind of long range warning sign right there?

POINT 5

Not if they set out at night. If they practice loading, shifting the barges, then unloading, it might lull the British. Then, one night, the barges start across landing tanks, artillery, other vehicles, more men, and supplies.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The air base would have fuel, supplies, and ground personnel for Luftwaffe planes that need help but they don't need to be based there, just stage them from France and top off the fighters fuel cells. This would effectively enhance their range, provide more time over the target, avoid the Channel radars, and hopefully save air crews from capture from aircraft that would otherwise be lost over the Channel.

The ground troops would consolidate their positions and enhance them. They would move out and try to get at least one airbase away from the coast so it would not be under Naval bombardment. More troops, supplies, and equipment would be flown in to increase their lodgment. If necessary, Luftwaffe bombers could also bring in supplies or just paradrop them although they might be needed as flying artillery.
warspite1

Sorry where have all these troops come from? Not to mention the fuel and supplies and ground personnel?

POINT 6

These would be the initial landing troops. The distance is not all that far and the Ju-52s could make more than one trip per day. Paratroopers could also drop out of the bomb bay of bombers, which could also drop supplies and equipment. With an air field in possession, it gets even easier and more can be landed and offloaded since no parachutes would be needed.

Any trucks, cars, tractors, horses with wagons or carts captured would be used by the Germans.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

With mines laid in a corridor in the Channel with U-boats and E-boats, that could hamper the RN a little bit.
warspite1

Do the Royal Navy have any say in all this?... or Bomber Command?

POINT 7

Yes, they do. But most of the Royal Navy is not in the area or it would be bombed. Bomber command would try and interfere but they would run into Me-109s and Me-110s. Those could ruin a bombers whole day.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Especially if the Kriegsmarine staged a breakout attempt with some heavy surface raiders to distract the Royal Navy.
warspite1

Lolzer. After Norway, which heavy surface raiders are these exactly? Have you seen what the Germans had intact and undamaged in June/July/August 1940?

POINT 8

Temporary repairs could be made, then the ships could sail and do so in order to be seen. The Royal Navy may not know the extent of the damage and would have to react accordingly. So would Coastal Command. Hopefully, the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean weather patterns would help hide the fact that the Kriegsmarine is not there. The Royal Navy could also sail into freshly laid minefields with U-boats patrolling. The U-boats then go south to the Channel area.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Little Bennie wanted in, Italy should have consulted with Germany and arranged plans for Gibralter, Malta, and the Suez/Port Said.
warspite1

I'd love to have seen this. Firstly the British allow any old unidentified merchant vessel into these ports? And allow any old unidentified ship into the canal itself?

POINT 9

Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet. These could either appear to be normal troop movements to/from East Africa or a civilian passenger liner stopping at The Rock. Spanish dock workers could either be co-opted or even some Italians pretending to be Spanish could have checked out the defenses at The Rock.

How many troops get ashore, what equipment can they possibly have, and how do they get re-supplied? What are the British troops doing in the meantime?

For the Rock, either be ashore as tourists who pick up some stashed weapons deposited there by Spaniards or Italians pretending to be Spaniards or troops debarking from passenger liners in uniforms with weapons. Do so through the cargo hatch so they would not be seen on deck. The defenses would be lightly manned most likely.

For the Suez, it could simply be a ship leaving mines behind until it sinks in the Canal to block it. That could render it unusable for a few days. The Royal Navy would not be able to reinforce or retreat easily until the Canal was cleared unless it decided to run the gauntlet of the Central Med.


Which of these three operations is going to get any Regia Marina support? This is the RM without the Littorios and the two Andrea Dorias just coming back into service.

First and foremost would be Malta where there was already a plan:
Invasion plan DG10/42
Italian battleship Giulio Cesare firing during the Battle of Calabria, on 9 July 1940

In 1938 Mussolini had considered an invasion of Malta under Plan DG10/42, in which a force of 40,000 men would capture the island. Nearly all 80 purpose-built sea craft that would land the Italian Army ashore were expected to be lost but landings would be made in the north, with an attack upon the Victoria Lines, across the centre of the island. A secondary landing would be made on Gozo, north-west of Malta and the islet of Comino, between the two. All of the Italian navy and 500 aircraft would be involved, but the lack of supplies led the planners to believe that the operation could not be carried out. With the German success in the Battle of France from May–June 1940, the plan was reduced to 20,000 men with the addition of tanks. The Allied defeat in France gave the Italians an opportunity to seize Malta but Italian intelligence overestimated the Maltese defences and Mussolini thought that an invasion would be unnecessary once Britain made peace. Mussolini also expected Francoist Spain to join the Axis and capture Gibraltar, which would close the Mediterranean to the British from the west.[36]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... mber_1940)

The supplies could have been found and be waiting. The 10th Army could have stayed put and thus would have had the supplies where they were at. The 5th Army could also have stayed where it was at so no supplies needed for moving. With the Royal Navy at either end of the Med, there was only one monitor and two gunboats at Malta.

There were six Sea Gladiators assembled and six more to be assembled. Three of these were named Faith, Hope, and Charity. Not much air cover against the Italian Air Force. There was one airfield almost completed.

There were 4 regular infantry battalions and one territorial infantry battalion. There may have been some light armour besides Bren carriers. They may have been two artillery regiments of 24 guns each, one of 18 pounders and one of 25 pounders. The coastal defense guns could not fire too much against land targets.


If only the Italians had tried that......

True. If the Italians had tried that in the Med and were successful in a blitz, then two German Panzer divisions and two Motorized divisions along with good () Italian armoured formations and mobile infantry formations, then Egypt may have been captured. That would make the Eastern Med secure and Central Med more secure. If Gibraltar could be quickly captured, the entire Med would be secure except for any possible Vichy French action.

The airborne landings in England would be a blitz type along with the force sent across the Channel to grab some beachfront property. But the British would be surprised and the Royal Navy would be out of position. As long as the Germans could get an airfield away from British Naval bombardment and kept operating otherwise, then more men, equipment, and supplies could be flown in.

Do these operations fast and surprise is on your side. Negate the British radar and lessen the distance that the Luftwaffe is from a safe place to land and it takes away the biggest RAF advantage.
warspite1

Answers to the points above

1. Sure, if you want to now make the scenario that things happen differently in Case Yellow then that’s fine but I’m not hugely interested. I mean, the halt order was given and Dunkirk did happen. Changing what actually happened at Dunkirk before discussing Sea Lion? it becomes fantasy: let’s assume the Germans don’t make the mistakes they made, while the British continue to make theirs…..

2. I’ve quoted from a German historian that there were insufficient gliders after the Low Countries, but you are still suggesting they be used?

As for the aircraft, you mention using other aircraft as paratroop carriers – I’ve no idea as to their availability, their actual nos. or to what extent they could be used for para drops. But sure, if you want to use the few FW-200 on this mission then fine. At least they won’t be giving the convoys a hard time flying from France into the Bay of Biscay/Atlantic - and there will be so many lost over the UK that they won't be troubling the scorers in future either.

3. I’ve explained that the Germans didn’t understand the need to put the British Radar out of action. But if you don't believe me I can tell you what Goering said about attacks on the radar stations if you like?

During one meeting Goering questioned the need for continued attacks on the radar towers "as the British have lots of radar stations" and none had been put out of action. This comment was not an order, it was a throw away line as though the whole subject was of little importance.

Source: (Bungay) The Most Dangerous Enemy

I repeat, if Goering didn't realise the importance of keeping the stations down, then the Germans weren't going to do it.

And please don’t say I suggested the Germans didn’t know or understand about Radar itself. What they didn’t understand was the importance of knocking out the towers and that that wasn’t a one-off - that is historical fact as per above.

4. “If the Radar is put out”. Well as stated above if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle. If we are totally re-writing history here, and the Germans suddenly know the importance of keeping these towers down, can we pretend the British had raised an extra five infantry divisions and 2 armoured divisions that they never sent to France?

5. “Not if they set out at night”. So regardless of what time they set out, are you saying that in a 36 hour journey it will always be night?

When is this all supposed to be happening again? Suddenly you have plenty of time for the conversion of the barges and dummy runs.

Suppose in the many dummy load/unload scenarios you are having the Germans running, this coincides with one of the air attacks the British mounted (and cost the Germans circa 10% of their precious barges)? That’s expensive isn’t it?

6. “The distance is not all that far”…. Okay I’m not going to comment on this point. The answers to other points cover off my thoughts here.

7. Okay. So let’s get this completely clear. If British bombers seek to interfere with the slow moving barges, then the German fighters destroy them. But if the Germans send over slow moving, lumbering Ju-52, Ju-90, Fw-200 and whatever, the RAF can’t touch them? (I say again, look at how many Ju-52 the Germans lost in Holland alone). Have I got the gist of what you are saying? The stuka had to be withdrawn from the Battle of Britain because of its vulnerability and mounting losses, but you have these even slower transport aircraft flying men here there and everywhere without a problem? Oh and the Germans would bomb the Royal Navy so none of their ships can get to the invasion fleet. Wow.

Sounds like the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot on steroids - with British planes and ships as the turkeys. Cool.

All this despite the fact that the Germans lost the BoB. But in this scenario what are the German fighters doing? They are escorting their bombers seeking to neutralise fighter airfields (same as BoB) they are escorting their aerial artillery which are supporting the landings. They are escorting paratroop filled aircraft, they are escorting gliders (that have suddenly re-appeared from the dead) on missions to destroy radar towers (that historically they don't even know need destroying), they are escorting the slow moving barges headed for England, they are escorting ships heading back to France. The German fighters suddenly have their hands even fuller, even more operations to fly. While the RAF, that never committed anything more than a small % of their strength at any time, have the option of bringing in everything.

8. “Temporary repairs could be made”. So what is the condition of the 5 German heavy surface ships? Scharnhorst required 6 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, the Gneisenau required 5 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, Lutzow required a year of repairs due to a torpedo hit, Graf Spee was already very much sunk. The only ship operational – and that was not until the end of July was Admiral Scheer. That leaves the three heavy cruisers. Well Blucher is at the bottom of a Norwegian fjord, Prinz Eugen wasn’t worked up for service until late 1940/early1941 and Admiral Hipper was ordered into the arctic on a raiding patrol and by the time she finished, at the beginning of August, was in need of a refit (having been damaged during Weserubung). So no, temporary repairs could not be made and at a pinch, one ship was available from August onwards.

9. “Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet”. The British are blockading Italy and they are fully aware that Italy could join the war on the Axis side at any time! But you say the British will allow, without any checks, an unidentified merchant ship into the naval bases at Gibraltar and Malta and to enter the Suez Canal? Absolute and total fantasy.

As we’ve discussed before, the only operation that was possible was an assault on Malta. That could have succeeded if the Italians had put everything into it – and I mean everything. Sheers numbers, lack of defenders and proximity to Sicily should have allowed even the Italian military to achieve success.

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19526
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by RangerJoe »

No, some of those barges could handle force 6 winds. There were many different types, including some with bow ramps. I am sure that the Germans also had ferries available.

The British must have had one heck of an electrical fence to keep anybody out. Trying to discuss any kind of operation like this with you is nuts because of this invisible electrical fence.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No, some of those barges could handle force 6 winds. There were many different types, including some with bow ramps. I am sure that the Germans also had ferries available.

The British must have had one heck of an electrical fence to keep anybody out. Trying to discuss any kind of operation like this with you is nuts because of this invisible electrical fence.
warspite1

Why have you suddenly mentioned an electrical fence? What are you talking about?

If you change history so that Dunkirk didn't happen and the Kriegsmarine suddenly had all their big ships available, and the gliders and transport aircraft destroyed in the Low Countries are available, and Goering understands that he needs to keep the towers down, then yes of course the Germans may win. And? So what? You've altered history so much it means nothing. Sure if the subject matter is looking at what could have made Sea Lion work then fine, but that is not what we are discussing here - indeed Curtis Lemay has specifically said no Sea Lion.

And just to be clear. Having read so much over the last few years on Sea Lion, Norway and The Mediterranean War, my stance on Sea Lion has softened somewhat. Ten years ago - maybe even a bit less - I was firmly of the opinion that Sea Lion was impossible to pull off. End of story.

Now, I am less certain. I look at, for example, Case Yellow, or I look at Weserubung, and I think that one thing is certain. There is nothing certain in war.

Could the Germans have somehow pulled it off? I wouldn't put serious money on saying they couldn't. But let's be clear, the problems facing the Germans were pretty huge and everything would have to go right, allied to the British making the wrong calls.

The Germans had so much luck in 1939-42 (allied to their not insignificant martial prowess) and the British were so poor (for the most part) in 1939-41, that it would be wrong to say it could never have happened, only that the percentages remained firmly in the British favour.


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19526
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by RangerJoe »

Answers to the points above

1. Sure, if you want to now make the scenario that things happen differently in Case Yellow then that’s fine but I’m not hugely interested. I mean, the halt order was given and Dunkirk did happen. If you want to change things then sure. Like with Curtis Lemay’s proposal it becomes fantasy: let’s assume the Germans don’t make the mistakes they made, while the British continue to make theirs…..

Don't insult me by comparing me to Lemay.

All I stated was that the German Army not be halted, that they finish the job. How does that become some weird fantasy? Or are you injecting such good pharmaceuticals?


2. I’ve quoted from a German historian that there were insufficient gliders after the Low Countries, but you are still suggesting they be used? As for the aircraft, you mention using other aircraft as paratroop carriers – I’ve no idea as to their availability, their actual nos. or to what extent they could be used for para drops. But sure, if you want to use the few FW-200 on this mission then fine. At least they won’t be giving the convoys a hard time flying from France into the Bay of Biscay/Atlantic.

Sufficient or not, what ever they have would have been used. They could also be reused as long as they are not damaged beyond repair or are totally destroyed.

At this time, they were not flying from France into the Bay of Biscay nor the Atlantic.


3. I’ve explained that the Germans didn’t understand how to put the British Radar out of action. But you ignore that and said that in your scenario they did know and would take appropriate action. Listen, if you want to go with that a re-write history then fine.

That is what we are discussing, rewriting history. A German commando type raid using gliders can put a lot of explosives on the equipment as well as downing the towers. That just might possibly even put the radar unit out of action for at least one hour. Can you comprehend that?

And please don’t say I suggested the Germans didn’t know or understand about Radar itself. What they didn’t understand was the importance of knocking out the towers and that that wasn’t a one-off - that is historical fact.

Yes, they knew that they had to keep attacking the towers and the sites themselves. That had means of detecting radio waves. You do understand that radar (not Radar, he is a character) works by using radio waves? That the radio waves can actually be detected at ranges farther than the effective range of the radar?

4. “If the Radar is put out”. Well as stated above if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle.

Not if she was a hermaphrodite and identified as a female. Or if she had a sex change operation and was castrated.

5. “Not if they set out at night”. So regardless of what time they set out, are you saying that in a 36 hour journey it will always be night?

It is a distance of 18 nautical miles across the Channel near Calais to the Dover area. Are you stating that the vessels only travel half a nautical mile per hour? It is a 5 to 7 hour trip on a ferry from Ostend to Dover which is a much greater distance. Dover is such a nice, distinctive port. Have you ever been there?

When is this all supposed to be happening again? Suddenly you have plenty of time for the conversion of the barges and conversion runs.

How about 23 June 1940? The barges don't necessarily need conversions. Some of them already have vehicle ramps. Don't forget ferries can also carry vehicles such as tanks. They would be considered Roll On Roll Off vessels. This is also the first time that you asked for a date.

Suppose in the many dummy load/unload scenarios you are having the Germans running, this coincides with an air attack? That’s expensive isn’t it?

Especially for the attacker facing the 8.8cm Flak, plus 37mm and 20mm auto cannons for lower level attacks - that is, after they fighter defense mauls them. There need not be many dummy runs, if any.

6. “The distance is not all that far”…. Okay I’m not going to comment on this point. The answers to other points cover off my thoughts here.

You may be confusing this with Operation Neptune, the movement of the invasion fleets to Normandy.

7. Okay. So let’s get this completely clear. If British bombers seek to interfere with the slow moving barges, then the German fighters destroy them. But if the Germans send over slow moving, lumbering Ju-52, Ju-90, Fw-200 and whatever, the RAF can’t touch them. Have I got the gist of what you are saying? The stuka had to be withdrawn from the Battle of Britain, but you have these transport aircraft flying men here there and everywhere without a problem? Oh and the Germans would bomb the Royal Navy so none of their ships can get to the invasion fleet. Wow.

That is not what I stated about the transports. If the Germans take off at night and arrive over England around dawn, where is the RAF Fighter Command? Even if the assemble during the day and follow behind a bomber force, is the RAF Fight Command going to meet them right over the beaches? The Luftwaffe would send out fighters sweeps ahead of the air transports along with fighters in close escorting formations.

During the night, how would the British necessarily know about any ship movements in the Channel if the sea invasion forces kept blackout conditions? I do believe that the crews and the soldiers on them would not want to be seen from England.

Of course, maybe you wwould wwant to be seen so you could try swimming in the Channel while you are loaded down with equipment.


8. “Temporary repairs could be made”. So what is the condition of the 5 German heavy surface ships? Scharnhorst required 6 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, the Gneisenau required 5 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, Lutzow required a year of repairs due to a torpedo hit, Graf Spee was already very much sunk. The only ship operational – and that was not until the end of July was Admiral Scheer. That leaves the three heavy cruisers. Well Blucher is at the bottom of a Norwegian fjord, Prinz Eugen wasn’t worked up for service until late 1940/early1941 and Admiral Hipper was ordered into the arctic on a raiding patrol and by the time she finished, at the beginning of August, was in need of a refit (having been damaged during Weserubung). So no, temporary repairs could not be made and at a pinch, one ship was available from August onwards.

The Hipper was usable. The other vessels would just have to be seen moving north, then return to be repaired or to a port away from prying eyes.

9. “Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet”. The British are blockading Italy and they are fully aware that Italy could join the war on the Axis side at any time! But you say the British will allow, without any checks, an unidentified merchant ship into the naval bases at Gibraltar and Malta and to enter the Suez Canal? Absolute and total fantasy.

There was no blockade of Italy yet, such a thing would amount to a declaration of war. That would be bad for the British in the United States.

As far as the Suez canal, prohibiting Italian ships would violate The Convention of Constantinople which was signed by both the United Kingdom and Italy, among others. This Convention allowed warships to use the Suez Canal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventio ... tantinople

As far as Gibraltar, it had a civilian town and at least one tourist attraction:
The Gibraltar Museum

The Gibraltar Museum, located within the historical heart of Gibraltar is a national museum of history, culture and natural history.
Founded on 23 July 1930 by the then Governor of Gibraltar General Sir Alexander Godley, the Museum houses an array of galleries and exhibits representing the Rocks millennia-old history and the unique culture of the Gibraltarians. Sir Alexander carefully selected two adjacent military quarters to house the Museum. One of the buildings, Ordnance House, was the official residence of the Principal Artillery Officer and beneath it lay the chambers of an ancient bath house dating from Gibraltar's Moorish period.


https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/heritage/gibraltar-museum

Or a vessel could also have an "engine" malfunction and go to the nearest port.


As we’ve discussed before, the only operation that was possible was an assault on Malta. That could have succeeded if the Italians had put everything into it – and I mean everything. Sheers numbers, lack of defenders and proximity to Sicily should have allowed even the Italian military to achieve success.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/10/2020 12:57:17 AM >

What I have proposed would have taken serious planning as to what happens after France is conquered. It may have seemed to be a pipe dream for some, but that is what you have to plan for. Hope for the best, expect the worst, and you won't be disappointed.

You seem to be upset that someone actually could successfully invade England which had not been done since Willy the Bastard did so in 1066.

Also read this about the Canal:

Were Italian warships allowed to use the Suez Canal before June Tenth 1940?
Yes they were, right up until Italy joined with Germany in the Second World War. Britain had two bases to protect the Suez Canal under International Treaty, Alexandria and Port Said. Britain guaranteed free passage for all ships using the Canal and protection of the Canal which was vital to Britain for easier access to the Far East, India, Hong Kong, Australia and so on. One perceived threat to the Canal was Italy which had already had a substantial presence in Libya from 1912, military and civilian, and Mussolini encouraged 30,000 more Italian farmers and settlers to move there in the 1930’s in an attempt to begin rebuilding the old Roman Empire, which included Egypt. However, Britain stuck to the rules and allowed a potential adversary to use the Canal.

Italy also regularly used the Canal to reach it’s colony of Italian Somaliland and in October 1935 an Italian invasion fleet was allowed by the British to pass through the Canal carrying 100,000 troops for the invasion of Abyssinia ( Ethiopia ). The invasion was precipitated by a border dispute between Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland. The dispute was supposedly solved by the League of Nations ( existed 1920 - 1946 ), an earlier version of the United Nations, which awarded Italy part of Abyssinia. Mussolini though, wanted it all and invaded. Italy quickly won the War against the poorly equipped Abyssinian troops ( who had actually had rifles and machine guns provided by Hitler ) partly by using poison gas left over from the First World War fired from artilery and dropped by aircraft. The Emperor, Haile Selassi left for exile in Britain in May 1936 on the cruiser HMS Enterprise. Eritrea, Italian Somaliland and Abyssinia were joined together as The Italian Province of East Africa ( also known as Italian East Africa ) with King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy proclaimed as Emperor.
.
.
.

https://www.quora.com/Were-Italian-wars ... 40?share=1
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19526
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by RangerJoe »

So Warspite1, with your illegal blockade of Italy before any declaration of war and the violation of The Convention of Constantinople you are actually having the United Kingdom at war with Italy.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19526
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

No, some of those barges could handle force 6 winds. There were many different types, including some with bow ramps. I am sure that the Germans also had ferries available.

The British must have had one heck of an electrical fence to keep anybody out. Trying to discuss any kind of operation like this with you is nuts because of this invisible electrical fence.
warspite1

Why have you suddenly mentioned an electrical fence? What are you talking about?

If you change history so that Dunkirk didn't happen and the Kriegsmarine suddenly had all their big ships available, and the gliders and transport aircraft destroyed in the Low Countries are available, and Goering understands that he needs to keep the towers down, then yes of course the Germans may win. And? So what? You've altered history so much it means nothing. Sure if the subject matter is looking at what could have made Sea Lion work then fine, but that is not what we are discussing here - indeed Curtis Lemay has specifically said no Sea Lion.

And just to be clear. Having read so much over the last few years on Sea Lion, Norway and The Mediterranean War, my stance on Sea Lion has softened somewhat. Ten years ago - maybe even a bit less - I was firmly of the opinion that Sea Lion was impossible to pull off. End of story.

Now, I am less certain. I look at, for example, Case Yellow, or I look at Weserubung, and I think that one thing is certain. There is nothing certain in war.

Could the Germans have somehow pulled it off? I wouldn't put serious money on saying they couldn't. But let's be clear, the problems facing the Germans were pretty huge and everything would have to go right, allied to the British making the wrong calls.

The Germans had so much luck in 1939-42 (allied to their not insignificant martial prowess) and the British were so poor (for the most part) in 1939-41, that it would be wrong to say it could never have happened, only that the percentages remained firmly in the British favour.

I never stated that the destroyed aircraft and gliders would be available but there would be some available.

As far as the heavy surface vessels, the Lutzow was ready on 27 July 1940 and the Hipper was ready before that. Even if it was just the Hipper that went out, the British would have to respond. If the Hipper just was seen and then went into a Norwegian fjord where it was unseen, that would have been effective enough for the Royal Navy to have to respond.

You can temporarily repair hull damage in a ship with concrete, at least enough to make it sea worthy. Let it be seen, then creep back to a safe port then camouflage it.

Don't forget, on 22 April 1778 that England was successfully raided from a ship which then evaded the Royal Navy.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You seem to be upset that someone actually could successfully invade England which had not been done since Willy the Bastard did so in 1066.
warspite1

Well I have to go to work but I've skimmed your answers (which I shall respond to later) but have to comment quickly on this one.

That is a rather silly remark. I've said above that I think it could have been achieved. I don't study history to affirm what I want to believe (if I did then I certainly wouldn't look at the start of WWII [8|]), I study it because it's interesting. If the Germans could have invaded then they could have invaded.

There is no question of being upset - don't be absurd. I am simply responding to what you believe was possible with my opinions (and where possible, with fact) - same as you to mine.


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 9275
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Zovs »

Well I only have limited books or have done limited readings on 'what if's' but (and I know this is a talking scenario) for myself the best way to try to wrestle (play out) this scenario is by the use of war games. As far as computer war games go I have played or have there are eight that I can think of that allows us to explore some of these options. Not all of them I can still play, but here are the ones that I am aware of that can model some of this: High Command (old DOS game), Third Reich (old DOS game), Commander Europe at War (older Windows based game), Computer War in Europe II (Windows based game), Strategic Command: War in Europe (Windows based game), Strategic Command: Global War (Windows based game), Matrix's World in Flames (Windows based game) and Warplan (Windows based game).

The reason I picked these 8 is because they have some type of political game that influences various 'what if' options.

I don't know how pertinent that is to this discussion or not. But one of the things that I do like about SC: War in Europe is that there is a path for the Axis player to go after England, according to that game it suggests (not sure how historically correct this assumption is): Invading Great Britain - A study by staff officers looking into the question of invading Great Britain has reported that if we are to do so in 1940 then there are number of steps we should take to help prepare the way. It then lists five bullet points and summarizes with the warning that it would be a high risk operation, likely to face stiff resistance and also awaking pro-war feelings in the USA and USSR, for both would be alarmed at the implication of a successful invasion of the UK.

I think that is a good summation of that topic.

I can't recall off the top of my head how the SC series handles Spain and Turkey, but when I loaded the 1940 scenario Spain was sitting at 12% pro-Axis. As the Axis player why would I want to jeopardize that? Likewise in CWIE2 the same thing is in place (in my 'test' game starting with the 1940 scenario, the current Axis Political Level is 39 (I have occupied Poland, Netherlands and still need to occupy Norway (2x pesky CW 2-10 cadres, a French 3-4 Inf.Div and a Norway 3-4 Inf.Div., are preventing this) and take out France and occupy it) and when the Axis Political level reaches the following:

Hungary joins Axis: 55
Italy may join Axis: 50
Rumania joins Axis: 60
Bulgaria joins Axis: 60
Spain joins Axis: 75
Turkey Joins Axis: 75

Currently the Axis Political Level is 39, I will gain +3 Political points once I occupy Denmark (screwed up and forgot to garrison it and 2 partisans popped up), and once Belgium is occupied I should get +3, so that will put the APL at +45. Once I occupy Paris that will net a +5 and once I occupy France I'll get +10, so that puts the APL at +60. So at that juncture Hungary, Italy, Rumania and Bulgaria will join the Axis. If one were to violate the neutrality of either Spain or Turkey (as the Axis) that results in a -10 points, which would not sit will with the Axis Minors. However the Axis would need an additional +15 to get Spain to activate as an Axis force. They could do that with either of two paths. If they go for a Sealion and manage to enter London that would net +10 and if they manage to occupy England that would net +10, then Spain joins the Axis. The other path is to forgo England and go for the Med. and Russia. Entering Egypt nets a +3, entering Tunisia, Morocco, or Algeria nets a +3 and entering the Suez nets a +2, for a grand total of +8 for the Med. Russian can yield big dividends, +5 for entering Moscow and +1 for each personal and resource center (there are 24 IIRC).

So there is all the from one source; SPI/DG War in Europe (WIE) and Computer WIE II (CWIE2).
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15329
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Hills. Are they steep or gently rolling? Are you moving between them or do you have to go over them and capture them? There is a difference. Do you know the difference? Have you any experience climbing hills with full field equipment?

No, there really isn't any difference. Tactically, the defenders can arrange their lines so that they make best use of the terrain, however it is oriented. The important thing is that the Germans clearly had experience climbing such hills.
If you drive a tank up a hill, the defenders can see and shoot at the lightly armoured belly. They can also have an easier time throwing gas bombs on the top of them not to mention shooting at the weak top armour or even into the engine compartment. Not to mention open topped vehicles like half tracks full of troops. German barbeque anyone?

Yet Greece could only hold out about a month.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”