The question to ask about The Italians

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

warspite1

Ah, the penny drops... so that is why a significant part of the Luftwaffe is suddenly needed in Spain and that is why you've now decided to end the deception operation after Spain.

If an argument isn't going well, well just change what you are saying until it does (obviously within the framework of never being wrong)....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

warspite1

Okay how about we do a deal. I will stop my rude and vile [8|] comments (seriously??) if you:

- stop being disingenuous by taking my comments out of context
- stop pretending I haven't made my point clear when all you need to do is give me the courtesy of actually reading what I've written
- stop being monumentally arrogant and insufferably ignorant by repeating the same thing numerous times with no effort made to explain or expand upon what you've said previously.
- Give me the same courtesy I show you by actually being bothered to put some effort into the debate, by doing some proper research and, for example, if you are going to debunk a US military study, try explaining why instead of simply writing one sentence that says you are right.

Let's try that going forward shall we?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

warspite1

Once again. See what I mean? What a waste of time and energy. "from the get-go". Yeah thanks for that in-depth piece of work.

I feel you've really got to the bottom of the whole scenario now. Thanks for that wonderful explanation. I now feel I really understand the timescale and how that timescale is possible. I feel you've really embraced the debate and taken on board the comments as to why its felt your timescale is wrong. You've superbly answered the problems of the political situation, the economic and indeed the military issues.

Thanks for the great piece of analysis - I appreciate it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

warspite1

Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? How did the Germans get to Athens? Well they didn't take the route we are talking about (but you've somehow decided to totally ignore).

So let's be clear. A US military study - you know, logistics guys, staff officers, that sort of thing - decide that the Greek troops facing the Italians in the Northwest of the country were reliant upon supply from Salonika. Unlike the northeast of the country, the northwest is very mountainous and communication is difficult. That is what the US military guys who studied this came up with. But, quite clearly you've done your own in-depth analysis of the terrain and the logistical issues - you've looked at an SPI map....

Having looked, really hard, at that map, how do you answer (yet again) this point?

Of course Athens would have served as a supply port.

Of course. How dumb of me, how dumb of the US military. If Curtis Lemay says its true well I guess it must be true right?

[Zovs]

This was from 1/1943 and we know that by then the German's were on the decline in Russia and the US was just getting into NA.

https://i.redd.it/w7d8s7o9jsn51.jpg

[Zovs]

I thought that link and pic was kind of funny for 1943...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

I replied to this already: The deception facilitates the Spanish operation.

I also question the impact the barges would have had on German war production. The Germans didn't go to a Total War economy till much later (I think after Stalingrad). So there was a lot of slack in armaments production that could be taken up if this sort of hit took place. In other words, this would impact piano production, etc., not armaments production. That's one of the reasons why the Strategic bombing campaign was so slow to register results.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

I also question the impact the barges would have had on German war production. The Germans didn't go to a Total War economy till much later (I think after Stalingrad). So there was a lot of slack in armaments production that could be taken up if this sort of hit took place. In other words, this would impact piano production, etc., not armaments production. That's one of the reasons why the Strategic bombing campaign was so slow to register results.

warspite1

We are not taking about what I say. I have given you two sources - one a German historian who has studied Sea Lion - who has confirmed the impact on the economy, but you are simply saying they are wrong and you are right?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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?.....

Significant part. Of course the Spanish operation needs air support! What military operation doesn't?

- But to facilitate the Spanish operation it's vital to make the British think there is going to be an invasion.

Beneficial, not vital.

Why? You've said:

- The British can't respond with much as they are pretty much out of options.

Not much is still something.

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

At least the BEF did.

- The RAF has suffered big losses in France and over Dunkirk

I never said anything about that, but it's desirable that they should be deceived into thinking they need the RAF over the Channel.

- The Spanish operation will be a 'blitz' and over in a few weeks

I don't know what the timeline will be, nor have I said the above. But, for sure, the Spanish are not a formidable force, compared, say, to the French.

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????

I don't see anything ridiculous about a July start date. The operational details can be planned well in advance. Claims that the Germans have to rest after just six weeks of fighting don't jib with the combat from the rest of the war by both sides.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

I replied to this already: The deception facilitates the Spanish operation.

warspite1

And I've answered this already. Go back and read how many times you've said the Spanish are dead meat, weak and will be blitzed easily. So why do the Germans need to launch a costly deception operation????

Previous response:

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?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Ah, the penny drops... so that is why a significant part of the Luftwaffe is suddenly needed in Spain and that is why you've now decided to end the deception operation after Spain.

If an argument isn't going well, well just change what you are saying until it does (obviously within the framework of never being wrong)....

I haven't changed anything. The premise has always been that the Germans decide on a Med strategy from the start of the war. Why would there be any need for deception after Spain has been subdued?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I don't see anything ridiculous about a July start date.

warspite1

I'll try one more attempt at answering that later today.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I haven't changed anything. The premise has always been that the Germans decide on a Med strategy from the start of the war.

warspite1

Can you confirm in which post you've said "from the start of the war?". Perhaps I missed it. If I have, my apologies as I would never even have entered a debate with you if I'd known you'd said that.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? How did the Germans get to Athens? Well they didn't take the route we are talking about (but you've somehow decided to totally ignore).

So let's be clear. A US military study - you know, logistics guys, staff officers, that sort of thing - decide that the Greek troops facing the Italians in the Northwest of the country were reliant upon supply from Salonika. Unlike the northeast of the country, the northwest is very mountainous and communication is difficult. That is what the US military guys who studied this came up with. But, quite clearly you've done your own in-depth analysis of the terrain and the logistical issues - you've looked at an SPI map....

Having looked, really hard, at that map, how do you answer (yet again) this point?

Are you seriously saying that supply lines are blocked by HILLS?!!

If you can move normal military units (not Mountain units) over terrain, the supply columns can follow.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Can you confirm in which post you've said "from the start of the war?". Perhaps I missed it. If I have, my apologies as I would never even have entered a debate with you if I'd known you'd said that.

From post #81:

"Just assume this was the German plan all along."

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? How did the Germans get to Athens? Well they didn't take the route we are talking about (but you've somehow decided to totally ignore).

So let's be clear. A US military study - you know, logistics guys, staff officers, that sort of thing - decide that the Greek troops facing the Italians in the Northwest of the country were reliant upon supply from Salonika. Unlike the northeast of the country, the northwest is very mountainous and communication is difficult. That is what the US military guys who studied this came up with. But, quite clearly you've done your own in-depth analysis of the terrain and the logistical issues - you've looked at an SPI map....

Having looked, really hard, at that map, how do you answer (yet again) this point?

Are you seriously saying that supply lines are blocked by HILLS?!!

If you can move normal military units (not Mountain units) over terrain, the supply columns can follow.

warspite1

No. I am not. I have never been in the military, I've never been to the hills of northwestern Greece/Albania.

That is why I may have an opinion and I may offer up an opinion, but it is purely that. When I read what professional soldiers - who have made a study of the terrain and know what is involved in supplying a Greek army - have to say, I tend to take notice of it and not simply dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit what I want it to say.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Can you confirm in which post you've said "from the start of the war?". Perhaps I missed it. If I have, my apologies as I would never even have entered a debate with you if I'd known you'd said that.

From post #81:

"Just assume this was the German plan all along."

warspite1

To be clear, because I don't want to get this wrong; you are suggesting that it is reasonable to assume that from September 1939 Hitler had it in mind to attack Gibraltar? To further clarify, at what point does Franco get asked to join in?

[Zovs]

So I have been following all along and I must say I am just as confused as I was when I first started following along.

I think I am following along with warspites reason and logic. But with Curtis Lemay I have no clue.

As we used to say in the US Cavalry "Lima Lima Mike Foxtrot" ... I'll leave you to figure out what LLMF means...

hint the CO sends this out: "Red One, this is Black Six over", "Black Six, this is Red One over", "Red One, what is your current location, over", "...Black Six, this is Red One, ... Lima Lima Mike Foxtrot, over" from there the conversation starts to turn very bad...

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? How did the Germans get to Athens? Well they didn't take the route we are talking about (but you've somehow decided to totally ignore).

So let's be clear. A US military study - you know, logistics guys, staff officers, that sort of thing - decide that the Greek troops facing the Italians in the Northwest of the country were reliant upon supply from Salonika. Unlike the northeast of the country, the northwest is very mountainous and communication is difficult. That is what the US military guys who studied this came up with. But, quite clearly you've done your own in-depth analysis of the terrain and the logistical issues - you've looked at an SPI map....

Having looked, really hard, at that map, how do you answer (yet again) this point?

Are you seriously saying that supply lines are blocked by HILLS?!!

If you can move normal military units (not Mountain units) over terrain, the supply columns can follow.

Not necessarily and if you knew how to do a map reconnaissance you may learn why not.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: 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?.....

Significant part. Of course the Spanish operation needs air support! What military operation doesn't?

I don't think that George Washington, Napoleon Buonaparte, Genghis Khan, Julius, Caesar, Alexander the Great, among many others did not have air support.

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????

I don't see anything ridiculous about a July start date. The operational details can be planned well in advance. Claims that the Germans have to rest after just six weeks of fighting don't jib with the combat from the rest of the war by both sides.

I did not state that the Germans need to rest. I stated that their vehicles and equipment needed maintenance. You are obviously ignorant about military equipment and its operations.