The question to ask about The Italians

[Zovs]

This is from the Europa module "The Near East", 1983

The historical research was more difficult, as relatively few sources go into detail about the armed forces of the Near Eastern countries during World War II, and those sources that do occasionally contradict one another. Still, by a careful compilation of the available information, I was able to derive a fairly accurate representation of the armed forces in the Near East I would like to thank Paul Dunigan for his help in this area, particularly with regards to air and naval matters.

Turkey: In peacetime, the Turkish Army had a number of in dependent cavalry regiments, one for each army corps. Upon mobilization, however, these regiments were to be broken up and their squadrons assigned to the infantry divisions in order to provide them with divisional reconnaissance. Thus, I deleted these cavalry regiments from the order of battle. The named artillery brigades are officially fortress garrison units. Since these garrisons consisted solely or mostly of artillery, I represented them as artillery and not fortress troops. The light antiaircraft regiments and construction engineer regiments are composite units from corps and army assets. The initial Turkish Air Force is a mixture of mostly-obsolescent aircraft, the best of which was the licensed production PZL 24 fighter. The Mxd fighter is a mixture of PZL 24 and Hawk lA airplanes. The He111F and Blen 1 bombers are actually composite units; both have some Martin 139W bombers mixed in with them to bring them up to strength. The Turkish Navy has two counters provided for the Yavuz, in order to cover the improvement of the battlecruiser's antiaircraft capabilities in 1941. By the way, the Yavuz is the Goeben, which Turkey acquired from Germany at the start of World War I.

Iraq: the Iraqi Mxd air unit is a motley collection of British Nisr (Audax) light bombers and Gladiator fighters, American DB-8A light bombers, and Italian Ba.65 attack aircraft plus a handful of SM.79 bombers. Despite considerable use against rebellious tribes in the 1930's, the Iraqi Air Force was not an experienced, reliable force, and I am willing to admit that I may have overrated it in The Near East.

Iran: The Iranian Mxd air unit is a composite of Fury fighters and Audax and Hind light bombers. The P-40 air unit represents a re-equipping plan for the air force which did not occur due to the Allied occupation of Iran. The entire Iranian Army was not included. A number of formations in the eastern portion of the country were excluded, as they were guarding the remote eastern borders and/or maintaining government authority in the tribal areas.

Egypt: The Glad air unit is a composite of various obsolescent British aircraft, with Gladiators being the dominant type. The Hurfi air unit is also composite, being composed of Hurricane I and II and Tomahawk (P-40) aircraft.

Transjordan: The mechanized forces of the Arab Legion started the war as a small, battalion-sized personal army of the de facto ruler of Transjordan. It participated with distinction in the Iraqi and Syrian campaigns in mid-1941. (In game terms, it is included in the British Habforce unit.) Following the summer of 1941, it was slowly expanded into a brigade-sized formation. Starting in 1943, various schemes for using the Legion as part of the British forces in southern Europe were seriously considered but came to nothing. By the end of the war, the Legion was the best-equipped and trained Arab force in the Near East.

Allied Forces: The Allied forces include those unique to the Near Eastern theater, appearing nowhere else in Europa, and those needed to link the module with Western Desert. The Polish forces being formed in the Near East were not included, as they will be included elsewhere in Europa. The British Hab force and 9th (light) Armored units represent the slow transition of the 4th Cavalry Brigade from a horsed unit to a fully armored force. The 252nd Indian Armored Brigade arrived in Iraq as the 2nd Indian Armored Brigade; it was redesignated the 252nd when the Indian armored forces were re-organized in January 1942. Its light armored unit symbol reflects its actual status, even though on paper it was supposed to be a fully armored unit.
—John M. Astell

[Zovs]

Thanks Ranger Joe!

There is no special rules for that or those hexes, however if you look closely on the map, you'll see that Vichy France controls most of the borders with Spain. Generally speaking most 'sane' Axis players will accept a Vichy France to 1) remove the French from the map 2) to then deal with what is left of the CW units still in France much more easier 3) to determine their next steps.

Next steps is interesting because when Vichy is created the Germans are entangled with units in the process of fighting both the French and the CW, so it will generally take, I would realistically say 3-5 turns before they can array their army against Spain or even against England. And the problem in CWIE2 is that starting off in 1939 the Axis player would have to spend a lot on both Transport and Amphs to lift the divisions needed, and after Poland you spend a lot of time building up for France, so the risk of purchasing Trans and Amph points to invade England at the price of Air and ground is something most players will say forgot England.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Curtis Lemay it's a game map! What is clearly possible can't be found definitively in a game map.

No it is not. It is a map from Wikipedia. See my post #675.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You refuse to read what I write or you do read it and simply ignore it. Shame on you.

No. You just don't like my responses.

The Balkans was seen as Mussolini's sphere of influence - and Mussolini had his own plans (yes, shock horror, the Italians weren't working for the Germans) for Yugoslavia as well as Greece - and these plans were shared with Hitler. So yes, Hitler did have reason to consult his ally on matters pertaining to the Balkans. But I've explained the reasons he didn't.

Clearly, Hitler didn't agree that it was Mussolini's sphere of influence.

You are saying German forces alone were sufficient for defeating Yugoslavia and Greece (true, but Italy provided forces regardless) but not Gibraltar or Suez?? THAT is priceless. So tell me, in an environment where there is no Barbarossa and its just Germany vs Britain, tell me exactly which Italian units the Germans couldn't possibly have done without.....

The Italians will be needed to help garrison Spain. Also, they need to be warned that a risky strike at the Pyramids from Libya is unnecessary.

[Zovs]

Follow on for CWIE2/WIE, if you look closely at that map, the dashed hexes near the Pyrenees is Vichy, so that Mountain hex (darker brown) and south and east is Vichy. That leaves the Germans to begin any attack into Spain from Three (3) hexes (which sucks wads...lol). Those lighter brown hexes are Rough which incur a -1 to the drm on the CRT, but restrict movement to 4/2 MP (Mech/Infantry). Most German Mech units have 8 mp and most German Infantry have 5.

So you can see it's, well rough, terrain as they go through most of northen Spain.

An easy victory, well eventually yes, but a cakewalk no. Here is the rub, in this game, if the Germans go for Spain (which is stupid due to many reason I can't or don't have time to address here), I can guarantee that if the Germans don't invade England that the CW will send 8-10's Infantry Divisions into Spain to help them and reinforce Gibraltar. Not to mention that attacking Spain increases (IIRC) the chance for the US to start entering earlier and puts the small garrison in Poland at risk to an attack by the Russians.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Another aspect of the “staff study” that suspends disbelief – perhaps the biggest – is that Hitler would even consider attacking Spain. Many have commented on this thread that they simply don’t believe Hitler would have considered this. German Military Strategy and Spain in World War II (Burdick) brings this into focus. I won’t repeat the reasons why such a move would have been so difficult for Hitler to have ordered. These have been outlined numerous times and, let’s face it, are pretty obvious.

There was one reason that I considered that Hitler might just have thrown all those arguments out of the window and just ordered the operation anyway. I have kept in mind that in making this decision, Barbarossa would be postponed (which is another massive leap but again let’s suspend disbelief and just go with that too).

Hitler was not a man who liked to be said no to, and it could be argued that he was particularly aggrieved at Franco’s stance. Why? Well, German blood helped to install Franco in the first place and Franco, in refusing, was simply being ungrateful and unreasonable.

Okay…. but what could tip Hitler over the edge? Well in addition to the above, by late September, when Hitler was actually sold on the need for taking Gibraltar, there was also the following to consider:

- Hitler had seen the summer months of 1940 wasted following the armistice with France.
- Hitler’s dream of bringing the UK to heel were dashed
- Worse, in being dashed, the Luftwaffe had been severely mauled
- The Kriegsmarine had been severely mauled in Norway
- Mussolini had declared war and Hitler expected this announcement to be followed by a surprise attack on Corsica or Malta…. but instead, Mussolini’s forces had done..... nothing, other than a recent march over the border into Egypt, whereupon they set up camp.

So, added to Franco’s ungratefulness we have Hitler who is now in a very bad mood about how things are not panning out. As we enter the New Year and move into January and February, Franco is still stalling - despite making positive noises - and to add to the above:

- The Battle of Britain has been a bit of a disaster
- The Italian attack on Greece has failed – and indeed they are in danger of losing Albania!
- Part of the Italian fleet has been crippled at Taranto
- The Italians have suffered defeat after defeat and have been pushed back out of Egypt, out of Cyrenaica and back into Tripolitania.
- Hitler has already had to send the first of two divisions to Libya to stop a complete collapse.

Finally Hitler snaps, gets real and admits that Germany can’t possibly open up a second front with the USSR with all this going on. Incensed by everything going wrong, Hitler postpones Barbarossa, and the attack on Spain happens in the Spring of 1941.

Again, this is just a suggestion to make the scenario work and not my personal opinion of what was possible.

What the book makes clear are the tortured back and forwards between Franco and Hitler. I hadn’t realised that the Germans had not only selected the forces and commanders (this I knew from various war games), but that the assault forces had actually undergone specific training (at locations that best mirrored the target). There was also extensive intelligence, reconnaissance and survey work carried out, not only targeting Gibraltar, but also the state of Spain’s infrastructure and how difficult it was going to be to get down to Gibraltar – even in the non-hostile environment envisaged.

I don't think it takes much foresight for the Germans to realize, right from the start, that they don't have realistic chances to get across the Channel. So, a staff study that has a good alternate should have had real chances to be adopted.

warspite1

Goering was supremely confident that he would destroy the RAF in weeks (4 days!!) and in that event, he felt there would be no need for a Sea Lion.

Despite what you've been told, you still cling onto the idea that no one had suggested a Med strategy to Hitler at any point? But regardless, that misses the entire point. It wasn't a "good alternate" because we know Hitler was not in the least interested in attacking Spain. We know Hitler wasn't in the least interested in putting off Barbarossa - both would have to happen in your scenario. Therefore in Hitler's eyes it wasn't a "good alternate" and has no chance of being adopted.

I disagree for the reasons I listed above.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You keep repeating this nonsense. Japan and Italy are not working for Germany's benefit. Rather, what constitutes their benefit is impacted by Germany's actions. Postponing Barbarossa changes Japan's best course of action. Adopting a Med Strategy changes Italy's best course of action.

warspite1

Not interested in discussing Japan until we can find a way to get past 1940.

Correct!!!!! Italy was NOT working for Germany's benefit. Sadly though, your scenario has Italy doing just that.

No it doesn't. Their interests are modified by German adoption of a Med Strategy.

[RangerJoe]

I had previously posted about the Turkish Army. There were Cavalry divisions.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They rested and refitted after the Fall of France because they could - no other reason. If France had lasted longer, they would have carried on as long as it took. Take Barbarossa: continuous combat from late June to the end of October, with perhaps four weeks stopped. Take the Allies in France in 1944: From early June to the end of September before any pause. There is no requirement to rest entire divisions because tanks need repair. You just pull individual tanks out of the line, service them, and send them on to catch up once they're back in condition.

warspite1

We've covered this. No one is denying that sometimes (in fact very often) units are kept in the field too long out of necessity - because circumstances dictate. That doesn't make it right and not something an army chooses to do for obvious reasons, and no one chooses to start a whole new campaign with understrength, tired units.....

Circumstances will dictate for Spain too. And, as I've said before, there will be a standard distribution of fatigue in the German units. Those that are freshest can be used in Spain. Those that have seen the heaviest action will form the deception on the Channel.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

No, they won't be doing anything at a leisurely pace and no, there was a rush. To suggest otherwise is to fail to understand the German situation in the whole war. This campaign isn't happening before September, they don't know how long Spain will take, and they don't know how long the second prong will take. If we are to believe Hitler has put off Barbarossa in 1941 he sure as hell isn't going to countenance a second delay. Not to mention he doesn't know Stalin isn't going to attack Germany.

There will be a rush to get Spain done - which will start long before September. But not Gibraltar.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Compare to Russia. And, actually, the Spanish army is so thin, it's doubtful they could do the bridge-blowing that occurs in most campaigns. Rails will be repaired and bridges rebuilt or pontooned. (And Spain seems sort of dry to me).

warspite1

Who gives a damn about not being able to blow bridges if the bridges can't take heavy loads anyway? But certainly interesting that the Spanish don't know how to blow bridges now.

They can't blow bridges if they aren't there. The Spanish units are in a peacetime deployment. They don't have units sitting on the bridges. So, a lot of the bridges near the border will fall into German hands intact.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They rested and refitted after the Fall of France because they could - no other reason. If France had lasted longer, they would have carried on as long as it took. Take Barbarossa: continuous combat from late June to the end of October, with perhaps four weeks stopped. Take the Allies in France in 1944: From early June to the end of September before any pause. There is no requirement to rest entire divisions because tanks need repair. You just pull individual tanks out of the line, service them, and send them on to catch up once they're back in condition.

warspite1

We've covered this. No one is denying that sometimes (in fact very often) units are kept in the field too long out of necessity - because circumstances dictate. That doesn't make it right and not something an army chooses to do for obvious reasons, and no one chooses to start a whole new campaign with understrength, tired units.....

Circumstances will dictate for Spain too. And, as I've said before, there will be a standard distribution of fatigue in the German units. Those that are freshest can be used in Spain. Those that have seen the heaviest action will form the deception on the Channel.

Since the British would know this, they would logically conclude that there is less of a chance of an invasion. But then again, the panzers would be located on the Channel and the units from the Siegfried Line would then invade Spain. I am sure that the Germans put their best units into the Siegfried Line. [8|]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It works both ways yes, but the Germans would be stronger since the Greeks are beating the Italians who won't fight their way out of a wet paper bag!

Doesn't matter if they are stronger if they can't enter hills! [X(]

Yup. Just because a tank can make it does not mean that a heavily loaded truck can.

Those armored units had artillery - towed by heavily loaded trucks.

Are you sure? In Spain and Turkey, the Germans would have to cross mountains and not follow river valleys.

In Yugoslavia and Greece, the Germans later fight against Partisans to such an extend that they could not control large parts of the country. Even Hitler realized that.

First of all, your claim that the Germans somehow avoided the hills in Yugoslavia and Greece is rubbish. Second, the Germans would have even more latitude in path choice in those countries than in Greece, due to the much broader frontage available.

The Italians would garrison Spain, and sufficient garrison forces suppress partisan activities.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Circumstances will dictate for Spain too. And, as I've said before, there will be a standard distribution of fatigue in the German units. Those that are freshest can be used in Spain. Those that have seen the heaviest action will form the deception on the Channel.

Since the British would know this, they would logically conclude that there is less of a chance of an invasion. But then again, the panzers would be located on the Channel and the units from the Siegfried Line would then invade Spain. I am sure that the Germans put their best units into the Siegfried Line. [8|]

There would still be far more than an army group staring at them across the Channel.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It works both ways yes, but the Germans would be stronger since the Greeks are beating the Italians who won't fight their way out of a wet paper bag!

Doesn't matter if they are stronger if they can't enter hills! [X(]

Yup. Just because a tank can make it does not mean that a heavily loaded truck can.

Those armored units had artillery - towed by heavily loaded trucks.

Are you sure? In Spain and Turkey, the Germans would have to cross mountains and not follow river valleys.

In Yugoslavia and Greece, the Germans later fight against Partisans to such an extend that they could not control large parts of the country. Even Hitler realized that.

First of all, your claim that the Germans somehow avoided the hills in Yugoslavia and Greece is rubbish. Second, the Germans would have even more latitude in path choice in those countries than in Greece, due to the much broader frontage available.

The Italians would garrison Spain, and sufficient garrison forces suppress partisan activities.

If the Germans attacked Spain, there would be a very small frontage. Maqquis would be attacking their supply lines, including those in France.

Why would Italy even garrison Spain? They would get nothing from that! No glory, only dead bodies.

The Germans attacked along the river valleys because that is where the good roads are. The good roads are not going over Hills then through the Dales. Good roads are on the flat lands. The hills are better defensive terrain, often with trees, that is not good for tanks. Anti-tank guns are not needed against tanks, even turpentine will work.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Circumstances will dictate for Spain too. And, as I've said before, there will be a standard distribution of fatigue in the German units. Those that are freshest can be used in Spain. Those that have seen the heaviest action will form the deception on the Channel.

Since the British would know this, they would logically conclude that there is less of a chance of an invasion. But then again, the panzers would be located on the Channel and the units from the Siegfried Line would then invade Spain. I am sure that the Germans put their best units into the Siegfried Line. [8|]

There would still be far more than an army group staring at them across the Channel.

They could stare all they wanted to, those stares would not frighten the British. In fact, with the Luftwaffe marching around with signs and yelling, the RAF would then be attacking not only the marchers but they could/would also be able to attack those rude individuals just staring at them. Heck, even the Royal Navy would get into the act by shelling them.

BTW, do they let you write with something other than crayons? Those are nice and blunt.

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There would still be far more than an army group staring at them across the Channel.

This is totally false. The Germans barely had enough transports for two divisions. Your Army Group Fantasy moving across the channel is absurd on so many levels.

These kinds of posts from you Bob (aka Curtis) makes you look like a fool and that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Then you have other posts that are twisting what others write and putting words that they did not say into their mouths, those kind of posts give you even less credit.

[warspite1]

I would like to register (formally) my total disgust at the way Zovs has conducted himself today.

Zovs you should know better, this thread is for pithy one-liners that say "I am right" without any need for the usual things one might expect like evidence in support of a position.

There is just no place for writing posts like those you did today that actually show you putting effort into the debate.

[;)]

[Zovs]

Warspite1 you are most welcome for my disgusting posts with information for mental processing.

I will not wavier from my quest to gain more knowledge and share and contribute as best I can at the expense of, ehr, pithy one-liners.

Your truly, rebellious from birth and country [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

BTW: A question for Curtis Lemay and Zovs. In the SPI game, was there any special rules/requirements around the rail bridge at Irun?

Could you remind me where/what country Irun is in?

warspite1

Irun is in Spain. The reason I mentioned it is that Curtis Lemay believes that because his scenario has been "war gamed" it proves it would have worked.

Clearly to make a case like that, any game would need to be incredibly detailed. Which is why I assumed there must have been mention of Irun in the game. Given the lack of rail lines, the rail bridge at Irun was of massive importance to the Germans. Firstly, the Germans were very concerned about it as they weren't sure it was going to hold up due to the state of repair. But secondly, they were so worried about it being bombed that they provided numerous AA batteries and coastal batteries (they feared naval bombardment as the line is on the coast) to help with its defence.

Obviously Curtis Lemay is making the point that this is a very realistic game and so I am assuming the British player can bomb the line and the Royal Navy can shell the line? I am assuming the Germans need to keep 3 batteries of AA and an engineer unit at the bridge at all times? Presumably the attack on Spain can't start until the coastal batteries are in place?