The question to ask about The Italians

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1


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.

warspite1

Not at all. They will all be fresh. The time it will take to deal with the political/diplomatic aspects, the training of the Kuebler's XLIX Corps and the intelligence work on the Rock - this operation won't be ready until late 1940 at the earliest.

Why? Why can't the political stuff take place earlier, if the grand plan is to do a Med Strategy from the get go? Why does the Spain operation have to wait for Gibraltar to be ready?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know how long the Germans planned for the destruction of Gibraltar? Two weeks? Three weeks? How long were the Germans going to hang around without any need to rush?

Why does Gibraltar have to be ready before Spain can begin????

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zovs



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?

Like in any campaign, bridges and rail lines will have to be repaired. Note that where rail bridges are down, truck routes can bypass them temporarily. Supplies come off before the bridge, trucked to the other side, and go back on after it. It changes how long it takes to get the supplies there, but not the amount of supplies that are ultimately delivered.

warspite1

Correct. I don't say what I have because I am trying to claim anything different. I make the comments I have (which are all from German sources) to temper your idea that Spain and Turkey are going to be quick 'Blitzes'. Spain will be beaten - but from everything the German planners - you know logistics guys/professionals - said, it was unlikely to have been quick - and chances are it would have actually taken longer - significantly longer - than beating France! Hell Operation Felix was expected to take well over a month and that's without having to fight through Spain....

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes, its obvious to anyone that one would need both sides of the Straits to truly be able to traverse from the Med to the Atlantic without fear of mines, coastal batteries, aircraft etc. That is why - despite the unsubstantiated verbiage that Curtis Lemay comes out with, Hitler was going to order an armoured and motorised division into Spanish Morocco - and why there would always need to be a German garrison of some description there.

I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys.

warspite1

Two things:

a) with the greatest respect, and not wishing to be rude, I don't care what you think. I do however very much care what evidence you have gathered to make you think what you do. You never mentioned 'Vichy' Spain originally, so what have you sourced to make you think this an option. Please provide and we can discuss. How does it come about, on who's insistence, what does it mean exactly and how does a 'Vichy' impact the war with Britain?

b) So you expect the British to wait the very minimum of six weeks - and that is a very, very minimum - for the Germans to conquer Spain and Gib and only then, not until a new regime has been installed do the British set about occupying the Canaries....? Come on Curtis Lemay, you are taking the mickey, you can do better than that surely?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

From the Burbick book (and again remember this is for a Spain friendly, full co-operation Operation Felix situation):

Apart from what has been discussed about the different gauges:

In 1940, four different companies managed the rail system and they varied their practices in each of their sectors.

The rolling stock was insufficient to meet the movement demands of a large troop force. They were shorter than German ones, in a state of general disrepair and in very limited supply. There were enough rail lines, but they ran in directions unfavourable to attacking Gibraltar. The general disrepair of the rail lines (the beds were incapable of carrying the maximum load) meant that only the most essential supplies could be carried. How many trains did the Germans believe possible per day? Four, each carrying 400 tons.....

Sorry Curtis Lemay, what were you saying about the one rail line?

Obviously security was impossible under these conditions and sabotage both simple and effective. The Germans were alarmed at the number of tunnels and bridges.....

The army supply officer (von Waldau) did a detailed analysis. The approach would be a land march (Irun-Burgos-Salamanca-Seville-Jerez) = 1,200 kilometres. Just the projected troop strength for Gibraltar required 65,383 men, 1,094 horses, 13,179 tons of ammo, and more than 9,000 tons of gasoline. These supplies could not move in conjunction with the combat troops and so supply teams had to establish advance bases at Burgos, Salamanca, Merida and Seville. Selected units would occupy pre-determined repair shops and prepare facilities for German use.

Halder reported being concerned about available routes for motorised units given the roads - the roads for the 1,200Km march mentioned above were barely adequate; narrow, winding and laid through passes 2,000 metres high, all food would have to be taken with them as there was no possibility to live off the land given the dire food situation. The same situation applied to fuel....

At the end of the journey all equipment had to be carried on two roads within range of Gibraltar's guns.

Obviously, they would have to repair the rail lines. Standard practice in any campaign. How could this possibly be worse than Russia - do I have to remind anyone of the progress the Germans made in Barbarossa - against vastly greater resistance?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

warspite1

And there you have it. Your debating style in a nutshell. You've been told, at great length, why it is highly unlikely Mussolini would agree to any such thing. You've been provided with quotes by the key players and historical examples.

Your response?

Curtis Lemay: I am ignoring you, I am going to repeat the same thing I've been churning out for pages - and I'm not going to provide a scrap of evidence in support of my position or even give you the courtesy of why I believe your evidence is wrong. But then I don't have to, I'm Curtis Lemay and I'm always right.

You're just repeating the same things over and over again. Why should I do any differently.

I repeat, different circumstances produce different results. Germany adopting a Med Strategy is a very different circumstance.

warspite1

Because I'm not. Since first stating your idea was wrong, I've added numerous historical quotes and comments to support what I've said. Italy 1940 are NOT providing occupation troops in this manner. You completely ignore reality and have everyone running around doing the Germans bidding because Mussolini and Italian have no goals right?

So please don't compare me with you, I am trying to make my case, I am putting thought and effort into what I am proposing. I don't sit here and state blandly that the US military are wrong, the German Army (you know the logistics guys that got the German army to the suburbs of Moscow and into the Caucasus) are wrong, I don't pretend I know all about the Spanish railway system in 1940 by quoting US rail road figures, I don't base an entire argument on what the rules of a board game says. When I get things wrong I don't gloss over them, in the hope no one will notice, when I am losing an argument I don't just pretend the argument was about something else.

I do however look for historical evidence, quotes, directives, diary entries etc of the way countries and people acted to try and get a sense of how they may have acted in a counterfactual situation.

In other words (and of course I may be wrong about my conclusions) I at least try and debate honestly.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

warspite1

Not at all. They will all be fresh. The time it will take to deal with the political/diplomatic aspects, the training of the Kuebler's XLIX Corps and the intelligence work on the Rock - this operation won't be ready until late 1940 at the earliest.

Why? Why can't the political stuff take place earlier, if the grand plan is to do a Med Strategy from the get go? Why does the Spain operation have to wait for Gibraltar to be ready?

warspite1

For the reasons I've gone to great trouble and time to set out. I've actually set out what happened in real life and what was occupying the mind of Hitler since the start of the war. I've put effort into trying to make a case. And then you ask that question...[8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know how long the Germans planned for the destruction of Gibraltar? Two weeks? Three weeks? How long were the Germans going to hang around without any need to rush?

Why does Gibraltar have to be ready before Spain can begin????

warspite1

What has that question got to do with my quote? You said matter of factly that Spain needed to be conquered quickly but the Germans could take their time over Gibraltar. I would like to know why you believe that? What is the rationale? And I would like to know what you believe to be the Germans timescale for reducing Gibraltar.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

From the Burbick book (and again remember this is for a Spain friendly, full co-operation Operation Felix situation):

Apart from what has been discussed about the different gauges:

In 1940, four different companies managed the rail system and they varied their practices in each of their sectors.

The rolling stock was insufficient to meet the movement demands of a large troop force. They were shorter than German ones, in a state of general disrepair and in very limited supply. There were enough rail lines, but they ran in directions unfavourable to attacking Gibraltar. The general disrepair of the rail lines (the beds were incapable of carrying the maximum load) meant that only the most essential supplies could be carried. How many trains did the Germans believe possible per day? Four, each carrying 400 tons.....

Sorry Curtis Lemay, what were you saying about the one rail line?

Obviously security was impossible under these conditions and sabotage both simple and effective. The Germans were alarmed at the number of tunnels and bridges.....

The army supply officer (von Waldau) did a detailed analysis. The approach would be a land march (Irun-Burgos-Salamanca-Seville-Jerez) = 1,200 kilometres. Just the projected troop strength for Gibraltar required 65,383 men, 1,094 horses, 13,179 tons of ammo, and more than 9,000 tons of gasoline. These supplies could not move in conjunction with the combat troops and so supply teams had to establish advance bases at Burgos, Salamanca, Merida and Seville. Selected units would occupy pre-determined repair shops and prepare facilities for German use.

Halder reported being concerned about available routes for motorised units given the roads - the roads for the 1,200Km march mentioned above were barely adequate; narrow, winding and laid through passes 2,000 metres high, all food would have to be taken with them as there was no possibility to live off the land given the dire food situation. The same situation applied to fuel....

At the end of the journey all equipment had to be carried on two roads within range of Gibraltar's guns.

Obviously, they would have to repair the rail lines. Standard practice in any campaign. How could this possibly be worse than Russia - do I have to remind anyone of the progress the Germans made in Barbarossa - against vastly greater resistance?

warspite1

No one would suggest any different. As said above, repair of lines is to be expected in war, because things tend to get damaged and destroyed - the impact on time is the key. However, you've not answered the point - the point is what you confidently said about the Spanish rail system and what it could supply and the reality. I've given you the Germans own numbers - which show you to have been completely and utterly wrong.... but you gloss over it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1.
You believe your scenario would have worked. You said you "know" this because it’s been "war gamed" and so that somehow proves it. Nothing else is required. This belief that a war game somehow provides that degree of proof of what would have been, was taken to the heights of absurdity when you confidently stated “And, all [the Germans] have to do is get to Madrid, whereupon Spain will surrender and her forces will dissolve”. Why did you state that? Well because it was in the rules of a war game…….

And, also, that so many countries did give in: Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece.

I have sought to counter a number of your ideas. I've done this where possible using historical examples, quotes, stats and military studies in order to support what I’ve said. In the example above when I commented on what I thought was more likely and that the Spanish would not simply surrender because the capital was occupied you again confidently stated as fact that “Every other European country did the exact same thing”. This of course is rubbish and numerous examples were given to evidence why it was rubbish. But you didn’t even think it necessary to check the facts before boldly making such an obviously wrong statement.

It was not obviously wrong (see above). Even Norway was fully occupied if it did not officially surrender.

2.
You believe that writing one liners in which you essentially say "I am right" is sufficient. You don’t put any effort into supporting your case. You confidently state that “whatever force the Germans put into Spain… one rail line will be far more than sufficient to supply it” and “Now, how many trains can be pushed down a single line in a day? Surely at least 24….”. Unusually in this case you did actually attempt to provide some evidence in support of your “fact”. Unfortunately the data you provided referred to US railroads and not specific to Spain. The supporting data was therefore essentially useless as the conclusion you drew bears no relationship to reality.

The Spanish lines will need some repair, that's all. That wouldn't have been done in the case you were quoting, but it would have been during a conquest.

And, you repeat things over and over again. They don't deserve detailed answers at that point.

3.
You believe that when quoting the few historical details you have, it doesn't weaken your case that about 80% of them have actually been wrong. I mean seriously, how can you opine on a “what-if” if you don’t understand about the events involved? I am not going to repeat the long list of factual errors you have made, but would comment upon one example. You seek to make a case for what would happen post the fall of France. As part of that you need to make assumptions for how the British would react to any moves. In order to do this it is only expected that you would have at least some knowledge of the European war Sept 1939-June 1940. If you don’t understand what actually happened, then how can you seek to opine on what may have happened in any counterfactual? You are making a case for what the British would or wouldn’t do and gave this example: “After they miraculously rescued the BEF from Dunkirk, they didn't insert it right back into France further West in a misguided attempt to save France. Neither would they be inserting it into Spain”. I mean seriously? You are giving your opinion on what the British would/wouldn’t have done based on a 100% factually inaccurate statement. That you are “authoritatively” commenting on this and yet had never even heard of the second BEF, let alone what it did, is pretty shocking.

Actually, I was right. They didn't put the BEF back into France. A "Second BEF" was something else. And it turned around and got out almost as soon as it arrived.

Whereas I believe that knowing what happened when and why is kind of important. At the very least it gives a solid base line for exploring what may have happened. Like for example when looking at the way Mussolini was likely to behave faced with the circumstances of your scenario. I have given numerous examples to show Mussolini’s actual thoughts, Badoglio’s actual mind set, Italian actual war aims, and I’ve given historical examples, all to support what I believe is more likely to have happened. It would be nice if you made the same effort.

The example of Barbarossa showed that Mussolini could be enticed by German plans. German adoption of a Med Strategy would have impacted his decisions.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1.
You believe your scenario would have worked. You said you "know" this because it’s been "war gamed" and so that somehow proves it. Nothing else is required. This belief that a war game somehow provides that degree of proof of what would have been, was taken to the heights of absurdity when you confidently stated “And, all [the Germans] have to do is get to Madrid, whereupon Spain will surrender and her forces will dissolve”. Why did you state that? Well because it was in the rules of a war game…….

And, also, that so many countries did give in: Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece.

warspite1

Poland - NO
Denmark - NO, the King ordered no fighting for understandable reasons
Belgium - NO
France - NO
Yugoslavia - I'd need to check
Greece - Possibly, but then Athens was at the extreme south of the country anyway. There was only a few island left by the time the Germans reached the capital.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

It was not obviously wrong (see above). Even Norway was fully occupied if it did not officially surrender.

warspite1

Sorry, what are you talking about? We are talking about whether a country automatically surrenders because the capital has been captured. Norway's capital was captured right at the outset of the campaign in April, but the Norwegians fought until they almost ran out of country at Narvik and were deserted by their Allies in June. What point are you trying to make now?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You believe that writing one liners in which you essentially say "I am right" is sufficient. You don’t put any effort into supporting your case. You confidently state that “whatever force the Germans put into Spain… one rail line will be far more than sufficient to supply it” and “Now, how many trains can be pushed down a single line in a day? Surely at least 24….”. Unusually in this case you did actually attempt to provide some evidence in support of your “fact”. Unfortunately the data you provided referred to US railroads and not specific to Spain. The supporting data was therefore essentially useless as the conclusion you drew bears no relationship to reality.

The Spanish lines will need some repair, that's all. That wouldn't have been done in the case you were quoting, but it would have been during a conquest.

And, you repeat things over and over again. They don't deserve detailed answers at that point.

warspite1

Again, so disingenuous. You completely side step the fact that what you said the Spanish rail road could carry was total and utter garbage in terms of what it could actually carry. I am not talking a little bit I am talking night and day, chalk and cheese. But you can't even bring yourself to say, "yep, fair cop gov, I was completely wrong on that one" but instead change the point to hide yet another false 'fact'.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1.
You believe your scenario would have worked. You said you "know" this because it’s been "war gamed" and so that somehow proves it. Nothing else is required. This belief that a war game somehow provides that degree of proof of what would have been, was taken to the heights of absurdity when you confidently stated “And, all [the Germans] have to do is get to Madrid, whereupon Spain will surrender and her forces will dissolve”. Why did you state that? Well because it was in the rules of a war game…….

And, also, that so many countries did give in: Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece.

warspite1

Poland - NO
Denmark - NO, the King ordered no fighting for understandable reasons
Belgium - NO
France - NO
Yugoslavia - I'd need to check
Greece - Possibly, but then Athens was at the extreme south of the country anyway. There was only a few island left by the time the Germans reached the capital.

I am not sure what the "NO" means. That they didn't give in? I thought Denmark gave in as soon as they were invaded. And that France gave in as well (I thought the armistice the 22nd was France giving in).

Edit: Is the "NO" that they didn't give in just because their capital was occupied?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Actually, I was right. They didn't put the BEF back into France. A "Second BEF" was something else. And it turned around and got out almost as soon as it arrived.

warspite1

Erm..... Listen, I won't comment on this because I have no wish to embarrass you. You may want to think about deleting it - and in fairness to you, I will then delete this comment too [X(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The example of Barbarossa showed that Mussolini could be enticed by German plans. German adoption of a Med Strategy would have impacted his decisions.

warspite1

You just keep repeating yourself without providing any evidence, any quotes, any directives, any diary entries any..... absolutely anything at all. You said it, so it must be right, yes?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

1.
You believe your scenario would have worked. You said you "know" this because it’s been "war gamed" and so that somehow proves it. Nothing else is required. This belief that a war game somehow provides that degree of proof of what would have been, was taken to the heights of absurdity when you confidently stated “And, all [the Germans] have to do is get to Madrid, whereupon Spain will surrender and her forces will dissolve”. Why did you state that? Well because it was in the rules of a war game…….

And, also, that so many countries did give in: Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece.

warspite1

Poland - NO
Denmark - NO, the King ordered no fighting for understandable reasons
Belgium - NO
France - NO
Yugoslavia - I'd need to check
Greece - Possibly, but then Athens was at the extreme south of the country anyway. There was only a few island left by the time the Germans reached the capital.

Poland - Yes. Otherwise, where was the fighting in 1940 and beyond?
Denmark - Yes. What is the material difference?
Belgium - Yes.
France - Yes.
Yugoslavia - Yes - practically immediately!
Greece - Yes.

I suppose you're going to present some fine print that they didn't officially give in. Typical.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



And, also, that so many countries did give in: Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece.

warspite1

Poland - NO
Denmark - NO, the King ordered no fighting for understandable reasons
Belgium - NO
France - NO
Yugoslavia - I'd need to check
Greece - Possibly, but then Athens was at the extreme south of the country anyway. There was only a few island left by the time the Germans reached the capital.

I am not sure what the "NO" means. That they didn't give in? I thought Denmark gave in as soon as they were invaded. And that France gave in as well (I thought the armistice the 22nd was France giving in).

Edit: Is the "NO" that they didn't give in just because their capital was occupied?

warspite1

Because a rule in an SPI game says Spain surrender if Madrid is occupied, Curtis Lemay treats that as a fact. It was pointed out that that is not necessarily so. To this he answered that EVERY European country surrendered after the capital was occupied. It was pointed out that this wasn't the case - and examples were given, but Curtis Lemay believes he's always right.

Yes, I've said Denmark doesn't count because the King ordered no fighting to save lives that would uselessly be lost. The capital doesn't apply here.

[Curtis Lemay]

There is a craven effort to present Spain as an impossible obstacle. This is ridiculous. Her army was smaller than the BEF by itself, and much poorer quality. Logistics or terrain alone could not stop the Germans.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There is a craven effort to present Spain as an impossible obstacle. This is ridiculous. Her army was smaller than the BEF by itself, and much poorer quality. Logistics or terrain alone could not stop the Germans.

warspite1

You love that word craven don't you?

You can't have a sensible conversation can you? I have NOT said Spain is an impossible obstacle - Spain WILL be defeated. How many more times do I need to say this??????

All I am doing is tempering your glib 'blitz' line. And please, get it into your head, you are not arguing with me, you are not arguing with an author, you are arguing with the Germans - you know, the ones who would have to carry out this operation, surveyed the territory in detail, and wrote the comments I've quoted.

But again, you seem to think you know better than the German Army.....