Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You are trying to equate force with logistics. Force is dependent upon logistical support but but logistical support with nothing to use it with and trained people to use it is just a waste. You are the desperate one on this. And no, you don't have to know how much water is to be in each soldier's canteen but you do need to know how many soldiers there will be and thus how many canteens are needed, where there is potable water for resupply. That goes for every other piece of equipment needed plus the supplies needed.

quote:

But the RAF is not timid and they would have flown at night because the did fly at night. They would have flown bombers against any invasion, no matter the odds. The RN is not timid either and would go into Harm's Way because that is what they are there for. They do not have to get out of range since they will have the unattacked Fighter Command for Combat Air Patrols and Radar which could see the Luftwaffe formations as they formed up over France. The Fast Motor Boats of a type not yet described could not do the job that you want them to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Poland never surrendered. After the occupation, the highest number of people in the Polish military was 249,000 plus at least one brown bear who was promoted to Sergeant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

[I specifically mentioned Norway as there was around two months - and plenty of fighting - between the fall of Oslo and the surrender of Norwegian forces - and the Norwegians only surrendered then because their Allies left and they were left with little apart from Narvik and the arctic wastes to defend. But you and RangerJoe are quite right, There was additional fighting in France after Paris was occupied and in Poland after Warsaw was captured. The Poles never surrendered, they simply ran out of country to defend and troops to defend with and, whilst we can't say with certainty, there is every reason to believe the Spaniards would have done the same given the circumstances of their betrayal. In addition to the two you mentioned, Belgium continued fighting for a time after Brussels was occupied. I haven't bothered checking the other countries.

Of course if we move outside of World War II the examples are many - but just sticking to World War II, these four examples alone gives the lie to "Every other European country did the exact same thing" and simply reflect, once again, that no effort, no fact checking, no detail has gone into this faintly ridiculous 'staff study'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Therefore, Japan should go to war with every nation under the sun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Clearly, the war in China didn't topple their government during WWII as it sat on the back burner. It can wait.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The Japanese can't go to war with the US while the Soviets are unencumbered.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This was from the designer’s notes from SPI’s Korea wargame about how difficult it was to sever rail supply lines by air:

“Railroads are easier to repair than roads. A thirty-six division CCF army can be supplied by as little as one train of 50 cars per day.”

36 divisions, by the way, would be what I'd call an Army Group.

Now, how many trains can be pushed down a single line in a day? Surely at least 24 (1 per hour for the math challenged).

As I've said, a rail line can keep an enormous amount of force supplied. So much so, that it isn't even necessary to check if it's enough.

CCF? Do you mean the People's Volunteer Army?

Those Chinese divisions number 9,500 men at full strength with little to no heavy equipment. That does not compare to a Western military division in manpower nor supply needs, much less armoured and motorized formations on the move. The US 1st Marine division wrecked at least 6 of those divisions on its own in 1950. The Chinese Army that it was fighting asked for 60,000 replacements and was ineffective for 3 months. After the UN forces were pushed out of North Korea, the Chinese were out of supplies. That does not sound very good for an attacking force.

So don't compare Korea to Spain.

Check military historians and military publications for better details than a game designed to make money.

That was from ONE train per day. A rail line can handle far more than that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK, I overlooked Norway......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

....Nevertheless, SPI says they surrender upon the fall of Madrid.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But, even if they don't, they're so puny it doesn't matter. Their tiny army will be eliminated in short order.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1



.... well apologies, if rule 13b Surrender conditions for Spain, states that Spain must fall on surrender of the capital then of course it must be true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

[I specifically mentioned Norway as there was around two months - and plenty of fighting - between the fall of Oslo and the surrender of Norwegian forces - and the Norwegians only surrendered then because their Allies left and they were left with little apart from Narvik and the arctic wastes to defend. But you and RangerJoe are quite right, There was additional fighting in France after Paris was occupied and in Poland after Warsaw was captured. The Poles never surrendered, they simply ran out of country to defend and troops to defend with and, whilst we can't say with certainty, there is every reason to believe the Spaniards would have done the same given the circumstances of their betrayal. In addition to the two you mentioned, Belgium continued fighting for a time after Brussels was occupied. I haven't bothered checking the other countries.

Of course if we move outside of World War II the examples are many - but just sticking to World War II, these four examples alone gives the lie to "Every other European country did the exact same thing" and simply reflect, once again, that no effort, no fact checking, no detail has gone into this faintly ridiculous 'staff study'.

OK, I overlooked Norway. Nevertheless, SPI says they surrender upon the fall of Madrid.

quote:

But, even if they don't, they're so puny it doesn't matter. Their tiny army will be eliminated in short order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Poland never surrendered. After the occupation, the highest number of people in the Polish military was 249,000 plus at least one brown bear who was promoted to Sergeant.

Well, their army sure disappeared.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

You are trying to equate force with logistics. Force is dependent upon logistical support but but logistical support with nothing to use it with and trained people to use it is just a waste. You are the desperate one on this. And no, you don't have to know how much water is to be in each soldier's canteen but you do need to know how many soldiers there will be and thus how many canteens are needed, where there is potable water for resupply. That goes for every other piece of equipment needed plus the supplies needed.

Logistic assets are built into the divisions. So, where they go, the logistics assets go as well. And, all I need to know is that the Germans have so much force in France that they can send an overwhelming amount to Spain and still leave plenty to keep the British bracing for an invasion.

Yes, logistical assets are built into divisions. But if the fuel trucks are empty, if there is no ammo, food, medicine, spare equipment to be carried, stored, and distributed, then wht good are those logistical assets? You are confusing logistical assets with logistics.

quote:

But the RAF is not timid and they would have flown at night because the did fly at night. They would have flown bombers against any invasion, no matter the odds. The RN is not timid either and would go into Harm's Way because that is what they are there for. They do not have to get out of range since they will have the unattacked Fighter Command for Combat Air Patrols and Radar which could see the Luftwaffe formations as they formed up over France. The Fast Motor Boats of a type not yet described could not do the job that you want them to do.

Tell that to the Tokyo Express that sailed into Ironbottom Sound every night - safe from air attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Ferry assets? Please define what you mean.

They could again use river barges. They would have to be small enough to be craned onto flat-bed rail cars, then trailered to the sea by truck. But that would still make them big enough to handle that sea.

In other words, they could not handle much cargo. They could also not take much damage, especially if they were overloaded.

quote:

Planned the invasion well in advance? Why would they? The quick taking of France surprised the Germans, then they had to take Spain, so why would the German staff be planning this?

They've decided from the get-go that they will pursue a Med strategy. Plenty of time to plan - Barbarossa was done in less time.

Not true, Hitler wanted to attack the Soviet Union. Even Stalin understood this by his actions.

quote:

Would Romania even allow this movement through their country? Allow the use of their airfields? Not to mention Bulgaria!

Romania isn't necessary. Bulgaria is an Axis nation as of March 1, 1941. Yugoslavia is on the menu.

The moment Germany turned south, Turkey was preparing.

quote:

Anyways. the total distance between the Black Sea and the Med is only 380 kilometers or 235 miles long, with the Sea of Marmora being 280 kilometers × 80 kilometers or 174 miles × 50 miles. With mobile scouts calling in artillery and mortar fire, any vessels making the crossing would have a little difficulty. While mobile infantry and possibly armour forces could be rushing to defensive positions. Not to mention your average Turk with a firearm.

A fantasy. In fact, most of the Turkish force is in front of the Bosporus. It's all going to be trapped when these German divisions arrive in their rear at Istanbul.

You are the one in fantasy land. In Thrace, the Turkish Army had at least one infantry division, a Cavalry division with T-26 tanks and BA-6 armoured cars both of which could destroy any German tank at the time. Besides an armoured brigade, an infantry brigade an other units.

By the way, Istanbul is on the Bosporus. Just look at the map, please?

quote:

Since the vessels would have to come in by truck, those vessels would not be very large nor would there be that many of them. The forces that come across would most be infantry and they would be disorganized with little supply available.

Again, towed by trailers. They can be large enough - larger than a Higgins boat.. And there can be as many as can be gleaned from the rivers of Europe. A lot.

But not that many at one time and most of the barges would be larger than that. Much difficult to carry. Not to mention what the Turkish Air Force and Navy would be doing to them. Even a sub on the surface, not to mention civilian water craft pressed into service and armed. Much less a Battlecruiser with 28cm guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I'm with Lemay: these two poor and backward states were an easy prey for the mighty (yes) Werhmacht. Especially Spain, devastated after a civil war. + poverty and backwardness. You cannot fight a *modern* war with this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I'm surprised some of you assume Spain or Turkey would pull -yes or yes- a guerrilla war. Just because the former did it on the early 1800s.

Different societies, regimes will NOT be delivering the same, that's too mechanical. Want a really clear example? Compare the tsarist toothless, pathetic army circa 1914 with the soviet steamroller circa 1944. Just one mere generation apart and yet... This is what different regimes, epochs may offer.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I'm surprised some of you assume Spain or Turkey would pull -yes or yes- a guerrilla war. Just because the former did it on the early 1800s.

Different societies, regimes will NOT be delivering the same, that's too mechanical. Want a really clear example? Compare the tsarist toothless, pathetic army circa 1914 with the soviet steamroller circa 1944. Just one mere generation apart and yet... This is what different regimes, epochs may offer.

I'm with Lemay: these two poor and backward states were an easy prey for the mighty (yes) Werhmacht. Especially Spain, devastated after a civil war. + poverty and backwardness. You cannot fight a *modern* war with this.

I think he got his priorities wrong though. You defeat the main foe = everyone else follows. His diversion of forces is just er... too anticlausewitzian :P And yet the guy with the funny moustache got this part right. Well, more or less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


I'm still interested to find out more about the supply situation and continue to dig around. I saw this comment (and hope to have the article it came from in the next few weeks). The comment comes from a German plan to re-visit Spain (not invasion but assuming Spanish co-operation unlike this scenario) once the Germans had reached a line Kiev-Smolensk-Opotschka in the autumn of 1941 (yeah I know - how optimistic was that!!!!).

It says:

By Mid-July 1941, the demands of the Eastern Front, added to the problem of supplying and moving these units through the poor Spanish rail system were staggering. POL(?) estimates ran to about 10% of total stockpile earmarked for Russia, this would require 50 trainloads of gasoline alone, plus 8 trainloads for food. Sea transportation routes were considered and Naval officers feared the British control of the sea around Gibraltar was too strong to risk shipping.

I've previously mentioned naval supply (which of course was ignored) but clearly the fact that the Germans felt the need to explore this perhaps says much for the rail position - even in a Spain friendly scenario?

And all this is with Spain actively helping Germany and not fighting them. This of course in turn would mean:

- the size of the force required to be supplied was considerably smaller than would be needed for this scenario
- losses not being taken until the units were ready to besiege and then assault Gibraltar
- no expenditure of ammunition expended fighting the Spanish that itself then needed to be replaced
- no additional expenditure of fuel as there would be no need for forces heading all over Spain to defeat the regular forces and subdue insurgents

I'm also interested in the time impact caused by every train wagon of every train having to be loaded in Germany/France and then unloaded in southwest France and then transported to the Spanish train and loaded once again.

There is a further comment that says: The Spanish rail system required 12 1/2 days to move a single German division in 1940. I am not sure the context, but assume that would be from France to Gibraltar and under peacetime conditions (well until it reaches Andalucia at any rate)?

I hope the wider article provides some more clarity on all this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

My understanding is that Spain would be a huge liability. Even after a successful (no doubt) campaign. And what insurgents are you talking about? This is 1940, not 1808. Where's the pool to fill these ranks? WW2 was an utter ideological struggle. The partisans movement across the continent was more ideological than national. The core of these forces was filled with *communists* Except communism was more important in central and northern Europe. Southern Europe = anarchism ruled. Problem is Spanish fascists had already destroyed the powerful spanish anarchist movement. To fight your wars from your armchair you still need a pool of recruits Spanish fascists fighting German fascists... I doubt it.

And besides, the III Reich already could get everything they wanted from Spain

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Exactly. They were forced to flee and were *very* active in the French Resistance. This was an ideological issue, the struggle had to continue. But in Spain itself the movement was destroyed. I just can't see Spanish fascists (a variant of Italian fascism) fighting their ideological allies or nazis (or a variant of Italian fascism)...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

My understanding is that Spain would be a huge liability. Even after a successful (no doubt) campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

And what insurgents are you talking about? This is 1940, not 1808. Where's the pool to fill these ranks? WW2 was an utter ideological struggle. The partisans movement across the continent was more ideological than national. The core of these forces was filled with *communists* Except communism was more important in central and northern Europe. Southern Europe = anarchism ruled. Problem is Spanish fascists had already destroyed the powerful spanish anarchist movement. To fight your wars from your armchair you still need a pool of recruits Spanish fascists fighting German fascists... I doubt it.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


I'm still interested to find out more about the supply situation and continue to dig around. I saw this comment (and hope to have the article it came from in the next few weeks). The comment comes from a German plan to re-visit Spain (not invasion but assuming Spanish co-operation unlike this scenario) once the Germans had reached a line Kiev-Smolensk-Opotschka in the autumn of 1941 (yeah I know - how optimistic was that!!!!).

It says:

By Mid-July 1941, the demands of the Eastern Front, added to the problem of supplying and moving these units through the poor Spanish rail system were staggering. POL(?) estimates ran to about 10% of total stockpile earmarked for Russia, this would require 50 trainloads of gasoline alone, plus 8 trainloads for food. Sea transportation routes were considered and Naval officers feared the British control of the sea around Gibraltar was too strong to risk shipping.

I've previously mentioned naval supply (which of course was ignored) but clearly the fact that the Germans felt the need to explore this perhaps says much for the rail position - even in a Spain friendly scenario?

And all this is with Spain actively helping Germany and not fighting them. This of course in turn would mean:

- the size of the force required to be supplied was considerably smaller than would be needed for this scenario
- losses not being taken until the units were ready to besiege and then assault Gibraltar
- no expenditure of ammunition expended fighting the Spanish that itself then needed to be replaced
- no additional expenditure of fuel as there would be no need for forces heading all over Spain to defeat the regular forces and subdue insurgents

I'm also interested in the time impact caused by every train wagon of every train having to be loaded in Germany/France and then unloaded in southwest France and then transported to the Spanish train and loaded once again.

There is a further comment that says: The Spanish rail system required 12 1/2 days to move a single German division in 1940. I am not sure the context, but assume that would be from France to Gibraltar and under peacetime conditions (well until it reaches Andalucia at any rate)?

I hope the wider article provides some more clarity on all this.

POL => Petroleum, Oil, Lubricants.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why would you possibly suggest that? That seems a rather silly comment to make, and certainly not one that furthers this debate in any sensible way.

quote:

Well I don't think that is strictly true (although China was but one reason). Tojo was forced to resign in July 1944.

quote:

In the circumstances pertaining to that period of the war (the Soviets are increasingly concerned about what is happening in Europe) then yes, yes it can.

quote:

North Atlantic Treaty Organization classes of supply

Class I - Items of subsistence, e.g., food and forage, which are consumed by personnel or animals at an approximately uniform rate, irrespective of local changes in combat or terrain conditions.
Class II - Supplies for which allowances are established by tables of organization and equipment, e.g., clothing, weapons, tools, spare parts, vehicles.
Class III - Petroleum, oil and lubricants (POL) for all purposes, except for operating aircraft or for use in weapons such as flamethrowers, e.g., gasoline, fuel oil, greases, coal, and coke. (Class IIIa - aviation fuel and lubricants)
Class IV - Supplies for which initial issue allowances are not prescribed by approved issue tables. Normally includes fortification and construction materials, as well as additional quantities of items identical to those authorized for initial issue (Class II) such as additional vehicles.
Class V - Ammunition, explosives, and chemical agents of all types.[1]

U.S. Armed Forces classes of supply

Class I - Rations - Subsistence (food and drinking water), gratuitous (free) health and comfort items.
Class II - Clothing And Equipment - individual equipment, tentage, some aerial delivery equipment, organizational tool sets and kits, hand tools, unclassified maps, administrative and housekeeping supplies and equipment.
Class III - POL - Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants (POL) (package and bulk): Petroleum, fuels, lubricants, hydraulic and insulating oils, preservatives, liquids and gases, bulk chemical products, coolants, deicer and antifreeze compounds, components, and additives of petroleum and chemical products, and coal.
Class IV - Construction materials, including installed equipment and all fortification and barrier materials.
Class V - Ammunition of all types, bombs, explosives, mines, fuses, detonators, pyrotechnics, missiles, rockets, propellants, and associated items.
Class VI - Personal demand items (such as health and hygiene products, soaps and toothpaste, writing material, snack food, beverages, cigarettes, batteries, alcohol, and cameras—nonmilitary sales items).
Class VII - Major end items such as launchers, tanks, mobile machine shops, some parachute systems and vehicles.
Class VIII - Medical material (equipment and consumables) including repair parts peculiar to medical equipment. (Class VIIIa – Medical consumable supplies not including blood & blood products; Class VIIIb – Blood & blood components (whole blood, platelets, plasma, packed red cells, etc.).
Class IX - Repair parts and components to include kits, assemblies, and subassemblies (repairable or non-repairable) required for maintenance support of all equipment.
Class X - Material to support nonmilitary programs such as agriculture and economic development (not included in Classes I through IX).
Miscellaneous - Water, salvage, and captured material.[2]

But the most important one is:


Class VI is usually associated with the liquor store on a U.S. military base, typically a U.S. Army or U.S. Air Force installation.[3]

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

So you are trying to equate a German Panzer division's supply requirements with a Chinese division with 9,500 men supply requirements? You men will go hungry and your tanks will not move. The Chinese carried their ammo supply and one weeks worth of food on their backs. Think of all of that gasoline on the back of a tank waiting to be hit and catch on fire . . .

The same thing with a motorized infantry division. The infantry sitting on the gas cans on the back of a truck waiting to be part of a gas barbeque.

While the rail line may be able to handle more than ONE train per day, it has to unload somewhere then make it back. There is only so much space to do that where the other infrastructure needed is there. Then it has to be guarded and it can't be to close to enemy artillery, much less a man portable 81mm mortar . . .
Willey Pete anyone?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Tokyo Express sailed into waters far from their air bases so they had little to no fighters for defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That was sarcasm (lost on you evidently). You were the one suggesting that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But it could clearly wait for years - it did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Without Barbarossa, there is no basis to believe either of those moves will be made. That means no oil embargo and no US at war.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805