Matrix Games Forums

So I am getting lost with your twisting and turning so can you just clarify please?

You say that Goering won't act in line with his historical character and won't attack Britain (which will be left totally alone to recover in peace) despite knowing in his own mind he can finish Fighter Command in weeks - and in doing so there is no need for a Sea Lion that only factions of the army even believe in anyway?

BUT

The Germans, although not interested in Sea Lion WILL remove their barges to Northern France (as part of a cunning deception plan) to make the British think there will be an invasion. In so doing they do serious damage to their own economy.

But they don't even have to do this because, according to you, if they don't make the British think there will be an invasion there is more chance of the British sending small scale reinforcements piecemeal to the Med which will be beaten more easily than attacking Britain..... so why exactly are they doing this anyway?

So they are at war with Britain, they need to smash Britain's ability to wage war, but are instead, leaving Britain untouched, while at the same time hurting their own economy and not defeating British forces in any great number.....

And I won't even go over the arguments again about Spain/Gibraltar at this point.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think you are really on top of your thinking here are you?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Not only would the German invasion of England have been turned back, but it would have been a crippling blow to the internal European economy, and would have affected the entire German production for the remainder of the year.

Moreover, much of this fragile transport was essentially one-way. Another large section of transport would have to be immediately returned to the civilian sector of the economy so that the home front would not fall apart due to the lack of mobility.

[/i]

And I'd say that Dunnigan sounds pretty knowledgeable above. Way beyond the amateurs on this board.

warspite1

....and thank you for proving my point. Even when the war game designers that you set so much store by, support what I've said and what you've ignored, you won't budge from your Dream Axis Fanbois Scenario.

Again, if you have a point SPELL IT OUT!! I can't read your mind.

How does the use of barges EXACTLY as they were used historically, result in any impact beyond what occurred historically?!!

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Did you just say "four-engined heavily defended bombers"? I think you actually just said "four-engined (whether heavily defended or otherwise is immaterial) bombers" [X(][8|] I can't wait for the explanation of this.

If the Germans had fleets of four-engined heavily defended bombers - like the Lancaster - please let me know.

Did you just say "Not in terms of long range escorts vs. interceptors". You know the Battle of Britain was real life yes? You know it wasn't just something that happened in a war game or a fictional film? Do you actually know anything about World War II? Wow....

Are you saying the Germans had effective long range escorts?!!

So let's get this right. According to you, the barges tied up in port and the vast bulk of the Luftwaffe (not required in Spain) but doing nothing in Northern France, have WSC pressing the panic button. INVASION!!!! Call the militia!!!! - such that the British won't be able to react to the Med War....

... and at the same time you've said the 'air reckoning will happen over the Med'....

... but how, when according to your confused logic, there will be no air reckoning because the German 'demonstration' in Northern France will mean Churchill not sending any reinforcements to said Med theatre.

That would only last, assuming it worked, for the duration of the Spain operation. There will be close to two years before Barbarossa, wherein the Med will be the main theater.

And it favors the Axis because they have internal lines. They can fly their groups to the Med. The British have to ship them there. That nimbleness enables the Axis to create huge superiorities.

But it's the bit in bold that is my favourite. I mean that just spells out everything anyone needs to know about you and your Dream Axis Fanbois Scenario. For the billionth time, it is what Goering believed at the time that is important - not what you know 80 years later. Goering 'knew' fighter command was finished, so NO he wouldn't be thinking in terms of his Luftwaffe, that had swept all before them, losing an air war over Britain. It is you with your hindsight that are playing that stupid game.

As an aside: I'm not making personal comments about you. Can you just stick to the facts? If they were really on your side you wouldn't have to be so vile.

And, again, the rationale for the BoB was for a cross-channel invasion. That's not happening. And if Goring wants a showdown with the RAF he can still have it, but far better for it to occur in the Med.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So I am getting lost with your twisting and turning so can you just clarify please?

You say that Goering won't act in line with his historical character and won't attack Britain (which will be left totally alone to recover in peace) despite knowing in his own mind he can finish Fighter Command in weeks - and in doing so there is no need for a Sea Lion that only factions of the army even believe in anyway?

BUT

The Germans, although not interested in Sea Lion WILL remove their barges to Northern France (as part of a cunning deception plan) to make the British think there will be an invasion. In so doing they do serious damage to their own economy.

But they don't even have to do this because, according to you, if they don't make the British think there will be an invasion there is more chance of the British sending small scale reinforcements piecemeal to the Med which will be beaten more easily than attacking Britain..... so why exactly are they doing this anyway?

So they are at war with Britain, they need to smash Britain's ability to wage war, but are instead, leaving Britain untouched, while at the same time hurting their own economy and not defeating British forces in any great number.....

And I won't even go over the arguments again about Spain/Gibraltar at this point.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think you are really on top of your thinking here are you?

They have adopted a Med strategy. That changes everything post France.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




And I'd say that Dunnigan sounds pretty knowledgeable above. Way beyond the amateurs on this board.

warspite1

....and thank you for proving my point. Even when the war game designers that you set so much store by, support what I've said and what you've ignored, you won't budge from your Dream Axis Fanbois Scenario.

Again, if you have a point SPELL IT OUT!! I can't read your mind.

How does the use of barges EXACTLY as they were used historically, result in any impact beyond what occurred historically?!!

warspite1

And you say I am rude and vile???? But you keep doing this:

I have made my point so many times I can't believe you said I haven't.

The barges were not mere additions providing picturesque shots of the River Rhine to be featured in beer commercials. These barges were part of the economy, they were important, they served a vital purpose. This is not me talking, this is borne out by your war game friend above. This is born out by German historians such as Schenk.

In removing these barges from the waterways of Europe, they had an economic impact.

Now, suffering that economic hit because you need the barges to launch an invasion is one thing. Doing that for a deception operation (that based on what you've said yesterday actually makes no sense anyway) is the height of stupidity. After all, they would be leaving Britain untouched while harming their own economy and war making capacity. Nice double whammy there - and even worse, you are keeping those in Northern France for two years and so doubling the effect on the economy.

There. Does that (which I've said so many times already) sufficiently spell it out for you??????

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Did you just say "four-engined heavily defended bombers"? I think you actually just said "four-engined (whether heavily defended or otherwise is immaterial) bombers" [X(][8|] I can't wait for the explanation of this.

If the Germans had fleets of four-engined heavily defended bombers - like the Lancaster - please let me know.

warspite1

What the hell has the Lancaster bomber - or any 4-engined bomber - got to do with the RAF in 1940????

And for the avoidance of doubt just in case you try and deflect by saying I am not making my point clear - here is the conversation in which we were talking about the respective fleets in the summer of 1940:

w1: The Luftwaffe was vastly superior in numbers compared to the RAF
CL: Not in terms of four-engine, heavily defended bombers.
w1: Did you just say "four-engined heavily defended bombers"? I can't wait for the explanation of this.
CL: If the Germans had fleets of four-engined heavily defended bombers - like the Lancaster - please let me know.

For someone who seeks to lecture anyone over what was or wasn't possible in the summer of 1940, that response was very illuminating.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Are you saying the Germans had effective long range escorts?!!

warspite1

NO!!!!!!!!! I am saying that Goering believed he had what was needed in July 1940 to defeat the RAF - and what Goering believed is what is important. You did this with the Japan scenario, constantly asking what I would do or what I think. Who cares what I would do or what I think, it is irrelevant. With the weaponry at his disposal, Goering believed he could destroy the RAF in weeks (in fact he told Hitler he just needed 4 days of clear weather!!. The fact that we know otherwise 80 years later is simply not of any relevance to what the German High Command were thinking or thought they knew in the summer of 1940.

The Me-110 - the Zerstorer - was his favourite aircraft it was something of a shock when the truth about its performance became evident.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That would only last, assuming it worked, for the duration of the Spain operation. There will be close to two years before Barbarossa, wherein the Med will be the main theater.

warspite1

But why does it matter if its the main theatre? The whole point of your deception operation (which will be seriously damaging the German war economy for two years) is that the British won't move anything away from the UK because they are scared of invasion. Again, sorry to interject facts into the argument but have a look at when large scale reinforcements were sent overseas. Notice anything about the timing?

Sorry but you don't think your arguments through.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But it's the bit in bold that is my favourite. I mean that just spells out everything anyone needs to know about you and your Dream Axis Fanbois Scenario. For the billionth time, it is what Goering believed at the time that is important - not what you know 80 years later. Goering 'knew' fighter command was finished, so NO he wouldn't be thinking in terms of his Luftwaffe, that had swept all before them, losing an air war over Britain. It is you with your hindsight that are playing that stupid game.

As an aside: I'm not making personal comments about you. Can you just stick to the facts? If they were really on your side you wouldn't have to be so vile.

And, again, the rationale for the BoB was for a cross-channel invasion. That's not happening. And if Goring wants a showdown with the RAF he can still have it, but far better for it to occur in the Med.

warspite1

What was vile or personal about that? The way you have approached this 'staff study' is nothing more than an Dream Axis Fanoboi Scenario. That is not rude - it is certainly not vile. What else can I logically call a scenario where [repeat same old comments - Axis never make a mistake, Allies bound by their real life decisions regardless of any change, historical characters acting outside of reality for no reason, Italians and Japanese totally subordinate to anything Germany want to do etc etc etc].

If you wanted to be dispassionate, if you wanted to approach this as a proper debate, you wouldn't simply rubbish everything that is said. You wouldn't continually ask me to explain (because you are not a mind reader) even though I have clearly explained and on more than one occasion.

I am the one here that is trying to stick to facts and am producing quotes and articles.

Despite everything, EVERYTHING that has been said about Goering, what he believed, what others in the High Command believed about him, what do you say?

And, again, the rationale for the BoB was for a cross-channel invasion.

I don't think you doing that is vile, I just think its rude and ignorant. You have provided not one comment, not one quote in support of that argument (whereas I have produced a number against) you just quote it as though, because Curtis Lemay said it, it must be fact.

It's like when I pointed out what the military staff study concluded about the Greeks being unable to supply their troops on the Albanian front if Salonika had fallen. Your response?

They could have supplied them via Athens.

And in saying this you provide no proof, no counter argument to support what you say, just that one single sentence. That is arrogant in the extreme. I produce a comment from a US military study and you provide.... well you don't even provide one of your game maps - because if you recall correctly, there was no road or rail link from Athens to the Albanian front. You just effectively simply state that what Curtis Lemay says is fact - no evidence, proof or justification required.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So I am getting lost with your twisting and turning so can you just clarify please?

You say that Goering won't act in line with his historical character and won't attack Britain (which will be left totally alone to recover in peace) despite knowing in his own mind he can finish Fighter Command in weeks - and in doing so there is no need for a Sea Lion that only factions of the army even believe in anyway?

BUT

The Germans, although not interested in Sea Lion WILL remove their barges to Northern France (as part of a cunning deception plan) to make the British think there will be an invasion. In so doing they do serious damage to their own economy.

But they don't even have to do this because, according to you, if they don't make the British think there will be an invasion there is more chance of the British sending small scale reinforcements piecemeal to the Med which will be beaten more easily than attacking Britain..... so why exactly are they doing this anyway?

So they are at war with Britain, they need to smash Britain's ability to wage war, but are instead, leaving Britain untouched, while at the same time hurting their own economy and not defeating British forces in any great number.....

And I won't even go over the arguments again about Spain/Gibraltar at this point.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think you are really on top of your thinking here are you?

They have adopted a Med strategy. That changes everything post France.

warspite1

Except it doesn't. Instead of simply repeating the same one-liners why not spend some time writing out - as I've tried to do - a timeline of events as you see it? What conversations are being had when and by who, how is all this developing amongst the competing personalities, the Spanish, the French, the Italians?

Your thinking doesn't seem to allow for the fact that no one in 1940 knew what was going to happen - they don't have the knowledge we do. As a result events are dynamic, they are fluid. For example we know what Franco will say to a German request to enter the war. But Hitler doesn't. But because you know, you simply ignore what, logically would have happened in the summer to get to a point where Hitler declares war on Spain (with all that means). You think you can just go from victory in France to attacking Spain. Sorry, life doesn't work like that and its that sort of thing that makes me call this a Dream Axis Fanboi Scenario.

Surely, you must understand what invading Spain means for Germany from every possible viewpoint - military, economic, political? This is huge. Yet you treat it as nothing. You are actually putting forward the case (with your proposed timetable) that Hitler goes straight from defeat of France to attacking Spain. No preliminaries, no discussions, nothing.

You don't want me to conclude that this is just a Dream Axis Fanboi Scenario? Right, okay, put some effort into it. Give an outline timetable and why you think the action being taken at each point is reasonable.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In removing these barges from the waterways of Europe, they had an economic impact.

The barges were used in this fashion HISTORICALLY!! How could that cause any more impact than occurred historically??

Now, suffering that economic hit because you need the barges to launch an invasion is one thing. Doing that for a deception operation (that based on what you've said yesterday actually makes no sense anyway) is the height of stupidity. After all, they would be leaving Britain untouched while harming their own economy and war making capacity.

Not if it deceives the British about the invasion threat. That facilitates the Spanish operation.

Nice double whammy there - and even worse, you are keeping those in Northern France for two years and so doubling the effect on the economy.

Huh? No. Once Spain is out of the way, the deception is unnecessary.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What the hell has the Lancaster bomber - or any 4-engined bomber - got to do with the RAF in 1940????

It has nothing to do with the RAF in 1940. Where did I say it did? The British would not be the ones carrying out a strategic bombing campaign. The Germans would be.

The Germans are the ones that need a strategic bomber and a long-range escort. They don't have either.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

NO!!!!!!!!! I am saying that Goering believed he had what was needed in July 1940 to defeat the RAF - and what Goering believed is what is important. You did this with the Japan scenario, constantly asking what I would do or what I think. Who cares what I would do or what I think, it is irrelevant. With the weaponry at his disposal, Goering believed he could destroy the RAF in weeks (in fact he told Hitler he just needed 4 days of clear weather!!. The fact that we know otherwise 80 years later is simply not of any relevance to what the German High Command were thinking or thought they knew in the summer of 1940.

The Me-110 - the Zerstorer - was his favourite aircraft it was something of a shock when the truth about its performance became evident.

Again, with the adoption of a Med strategy, the rationale for a BoB, especially with no cross-channel invasion, is no longer there. A significant fraction of the Luftwaffe is needed for Spain. The Med is going to be a major theater and therefore a better place to engage the RAF, because of Axis interior lines.

The Germans don't have the air force for a strategic bombing campaign. That the Germans were willing to risk it when it was essential for the cross-channel invasion does not mean that it would make sense to them without that invasion.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What was vile or personal about that? The way you have approached this 'staff study' is nothing more than an Dream Axis Fanoboi Scenario. That is not rude - it is certainly not vile.

Yes it is. You're not talking about the issue. You're talking about me. Stick to the facts and do not resort to personal comments.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Except it doesn't. Instead of simply repeating the same one-liners why not spend some time writing out - as I've tried to do - a timeline of events as you see it? What conversations are being had when and by who, how is all this developing amongst the competing personalities, the Spanish, the French, the Italians?

Your thinking doesn't seem to allow for the fact that no one in 1940 knew what was going to happen - they don't have the knowledge we do. As a result events are dynamic, they are fluid. For example we know what Franco will say to a German request to enter the war. But Hitler doesn't. But because you know, you simply ignore what, logically would have happened in the summer to get to a point where Hitler declares war on Spain (with all that means). You think you can just go from victory in France to attacking Spain. Sorry, life doesn't work like that and its that sort of thing that makes me call this a Dream Axis Fanboi Scenario.

Surely, you must understand what invading Spain means for Germany from every possible viewpoint - military, economic, political? This is huge. Yet you treat it as nothing. You are actually putting forward the case (with your proposed timetable) that Hitler goes straight from defeat of France to attacking Spain. No preliminaries, no discussions, nothing.

You don't want me to conclude that this is just a Dream Axis Fanboi Scenario? Right, okay, put some effort into it. Give an outline timetable and why you think the action being taken at each point is reasonable.

The decision to go to a Med strategy is made from the get-go, as I've already said. It only requires that the Germans realize that the Med will be a major theater and secure overland supply lines will be necessary to succeed there.

Obviously, they wouldn't wait till July 1940 to sort out with Franco whether he would join up or not - that would have been cleared up well in advance.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

They could have supplied them via Athens.

And in saying this you provide no proof, no counter argument to support what you say, just that one single sentence. That is arrogant in the extreme. I produce a comment from a US military study and you provide.... well you don't even provide one of your game maps - because if you recall correctly, there was no road or rail link from Athens to the Albanian front. You just effectively simply state that what Curtis Lemay says is fact - no evidence, proof or justification required.

No roads or rail from Athens?? How did the Germans get there?

Of course Athens would have served as a supply port.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In removing these barges from the waterways of Europe, they had an economic impact.

The barges were used in this fashion HISTORICALLY!! How could that cause any more impact than occurred historically??

warspite1

And here we have the perfect example of what I was talking about previously. Your debating style at very best, betrays a lack of understanding of the whole scenario on your part, and at worst is simply disingenuous.

Once again you take one sentence, remove my other comments so that it is out of context and then spout the same thing - which simply repeats what you've asked (and has been answered) on more than one occasion. And you think that is proper, honest debating?

Below is my answer and non-bold is the bit you've chosen to leave out - and as said, this is not the first time I've given this answer and not the first time you've asked the same question having ignored my point. Disgrace.

In removing these barges from the waterways of Europe, they had an economic impact.

Now, suffering that economic hit because you need the barges to launch an invasion is one thing. Doing that for a deception operation (that based on what you've said yesterday actually makes no sense anyway) is the height of stupidity. After all, they would be leaving Britain untouched while harming their own economy and war making capacity. Nice double whammy there - and even worse, you are keeping those in Northern France for two years and so doubling the effect on the economy.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Not if it deceives the British about the invasion threat. That facilitates the Spanish operation.

warspite1

Just think for a nano-second about what you are saying.

- According to you the attack on Spain is happening in July, with barely a pause after Case Red.
- You've now suddenly decided a large part of the Luftwaffe will be needed for Spain...... interesting development wonder why that is?.....
- But to facilitate the Spanish operation it's vital to make the British think there is going to be an invasion. Why? You've said:

- The British can't respond with much as they are pretty much out of options. Quite, in the last month and a half they've been evacuated from France twice (although you seem to have no clue about one of these) and Norway.
- They've left their heavy weapons behind in France
- The RAF has suffered big losses in France and over Dunkirk
- The Spanish operation will be a 'blitz' and over in a few weeks

But now, according to you, the deception operation is needed to get the Spanish operation done. Why, given the above?

And, if we are suspending disbelief and going with your ridiculous July date, why are the barges even necessary? How quickly can they possibly get to Northern France to be part of a deception operation for a Spanish operation that you think will be a blitz lasting a few weeks????

You just don't think anything through, it's all just off the top of your head with no detail, no thought, no nothing.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Huh? No. Once Spain is out of the way, the deception is unnecessary.

warspite1

Okay [takes deep breath.... and relax].... So according to you this deception operation is absolutely vital for Spain - even though the British Army is hors de combat and you say Spain will be a blitz.

But the deception operation that stops the British reinforcing Egypt is simply not required for the rest of the scenario.... which will see reinforcements sent in numbers because there is no threat and with no BoB the British have been left entirely alone to begin the process of building back up.....

....right.....

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

What the hell has the Lancaster bomber - or any 4-engined bomber - got to do with the RAF in 1940????

It has nothing to do with the RAF in 1940. Where did I say it did? The British would not be the ones carrying out a strategic bombing campaign. The Germans would be.

The Germans are the ones that need a strategic bomber and a long-range escort. They don't have either.

warspite1

My goodness... So you were having a completely different conversation then? Here ONCE AGAIN, was the conversation:

And for the avoidance of doubt just in case you try and deflect by saying I am not making my point clear - here is the conversation in which we were talking about the respective fleets in the summer of 1940:

w1: The Luftwaffe was vastly superior in numbers compared to the RAF
CL: Not in terms of four-engine, heavily defended bombers.
w1: Did you just say "four-engined heavily defended bombers"? I can't wait for the explanation of this.
CL: If the Germans had fleets of four-engined heavily defended bombers - like the Lancaster - please let me know.

And once again in time honoured Lemay style you make the same pointless comments, despite the fact they been answered more than once already and you've simply chosen to ignore them.

NO!!!!!!!!! I am saying that Goering believed he had what was needed in July 1940 to defeat the RAF - and what Goering believed is what is important. You did this with the Japan scenario, constantly asking what I would do or what I think. Who cares what I would do or what I think, it is irrelevant. With the weaponry at his disposal, Goering believed he could destroy the RAF in weeks (in fact he told Hitler he just needed 4 days of clear weather!!. The fact that we know otherwise 80 years later is simply not of any relevance to what the German High Command were thinking or thought they knew in the summer of 1940.