Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The question to ask about The Italians

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: The question to ask about The Italians Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 2:44:10 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why do you say that? In your scenario how can you have an Italo-Greek war? You said that 5th and 10th Armies are in and around Tripoli keeping the British in Tripolitania so that they can be conveniently surrounded (but of course ensuring that they don't actually lose Tripoli in the meantime). Apart from occupation troops in France and garrisons watching over Yugoslavia and Greece, you have some 30-odd divisions in Spain and Spanish Morocco. What troops have the Italians got to get involved in Greece?

And anyway, even if there were, I thought in your scenario Mussolini was a simple puppet of Hitler with no independent say over the movement of Italian troops. If Hitler wouldn't let Mussolini attack Egypt (and Mussolini meekly complied), why would he allow them into Greece (and why would Mussolini be any less compliant)?

If there is no Greece then why are the British in Greece to be thrown out of it?

This is why it makes no sense to debate this scenario in anything other than chronological order. And at the moment we are still waiting to understand what the Germans are doing to tie down British forces so that we can make assumptions over how the British may react to the attack on Spain when that kicks off.


Great! Greece remains neutral. A definite win for the Axis.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 451
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 2:46:57 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And you suggest getting involved in aggressive war in Spain (which would have been a MASSIVE decision for Hitler) would have been an even bigger deal for Mussolini.


A bigger deal than Barbarossa? (Which he was persuaded to join).

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 452
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 2:48:52 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 6668
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline 		We interrupt this program to...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....



You are only 1/2 correct. War in Europe was first designed by SPI in 1976 and then it was revamped and somewhat redesigned in 1999. Decision Games did that revamping. Somewhere between 1980 and 1990 DG released a computer version which was based on one man's interpretation of the old SPI game but he relied 100% on the disputed official KC and LA errata groups. In 2004 or 2006 (I can no longer remember) DG release CWIE2 which was the second version of the board game in this one, I participated in and we included the rules for the original board game from SPI as well as (being mandated by DG) the DG version of the rules, we also included as optional rules the KC/LA rules. Lastly Steve Graham invented the attrition option and I helped him with that design.

So all this is to say that with CWIE2 you can explore the original SPI board game rules, the original DG board game rules, or use either as a starting point and add in some, none, or all of the LA/KC rules and lastly with all three of those options you can add in Steve's attrition option.

What I like about the attrition option that Steve came up with and Karl programmed is this. Whenever you move and or attack you units will be attrition-ed in some way. What that means is you may see on the map a "cookie-cutter" US 8-10 or German 6-5 but their actual combat values may be for the US 6.5 with a movement of 8 and for the German a 3.1 with a movement of 4. Or something to that effect. What this does is add in more uncertainty to what you have and what your opponent sees.

The WIE and CWIE2 systems are in no way as complex as say GG WitE/WitW for both combat and supply but they are still good for both board war games and with the attrition option.

My opinion is that CWIE2 is more of a typical old fashioned board type of war game with some of the newer features added in (attrition) and is more of a challenge and detailed than say Strategic Command or Warplan, but it does not have any AI nor the 'eye candy' that either of those two games have.

That said, I'll take GG WitW/WitE over WIE because GG games have a more realistic supply and combat simulation than any board war game could contrive.

Lastly, I think Bob Cross (aka Curtis Lemay) stated rather erroneously that one rail track could support an entire offensive consisting of Armies and Army Groups. The only truth to that kind of statement is that for a board war game he is right, the game designers used a super simplistic supply system in just about ever war game created from 1953 to 1999. You just can't create a board war game that has any supply rules based on reality because it would be a game in and of itself. The closest was SPI's Campaign for North Africa which was a sales flop and unplayable due to trying to do just that. That is where computer games outshine any board war game, in the data hiding of and implementation of supply rules.

The reason Bob Cross is so erroneously wrong on supply is most likely due to the fact that he has never played nor even understood GG WitE/WitW. That game reigns king above all games in not only it's supply model, but it's combat model and the level of details that are both under the hood and available to manipulate by the gamer.

Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast...

_____________________________


Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 453
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 2:49:39 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....


But if it produces realistic results...

That's why wargames are some of the best source material for all sorts of things. Playtesting, followed by adjustments creates a feedback loop that gives wargames a validity that non-simulations can't match.

I still remember reading Liddell Hart's "History of the Second World War". You come away thinking the Desert War was the equal of the Eastern Front (since he devoted just as many pages to each).

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 9/4/2020 2:55:27 PM >

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 454
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 3:24:37 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Right. And the wiki article clearly shows that they were (rightly) seeing the Soviets as a threat. We know that, historically, the Soviets occupied Japanese home islands and Manchuria at the end of the war - confirming that that threat wasn't just Japan's imagination. They can't do what they did historically while one of those three powers threating them is unencumbered. Barbarossa has to be a prerequisite for that. The Soviets are a particularly dangerous threat because they can base air power in range of the home islands they want. No navy needed.

warspite1

Yes the Soviets could be considered a threat - albeit for the reasons stated - less of one than might otherwise have been the case. But where does it state that the Japanese couldn't have taken the route they took? Where does it state that Barbarossa was a pre-requisite?

Japan had major issues to confront. If she didn't why was there even a debate about whether to go for a northern or southern strategy? Why was that even a thing? If the Soviets POINT BLANK, NO ARGUMENT, NO DEBATE, were so scared of the Soviet Union, why was there even a debate going on? That makes no sense.

I repeat, again, we know that having decided in 1940 that they were staying in China, the Japanese had to do something because their position was bad and only heading one way. Doing nothing was not an option for a country in their position. When someone has to do something then poor decisions are more likely to be made.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

In bold is what I was referring to.

warspite1



quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. But I'm saying that three major powers threatening them was more than they could deal with. At least one had to be canceled.

warspite1

Nomonhan showed and WWII showed that either power alone confronting Japan was something they couldn't deal with. But you are treating Japan 1940 like having some rational, sensible, cool-headed Government. If that was so then they would have quit China (apart from the north) in 1940. If so they would not have antagonised the US to the extent they did. But we are taking Japan 1940. What Japan could deal with and what the Japanese leaders and hot heads thought they could deal with were billions of miles apart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They were at peace with the US and the UK too.

warspite1

Except that is not the point. You are simply ignoring all the issues Japan has.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No Barbarossa is what is different.

warspite1

....and in the context of whether to attack NEI alone or NEI + CW + US, then No Barbarossa is simply irrelevant.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/4/2020 3:39:23 PM >

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 455
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 3:27:53 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why do you say that? In your scenario how can you have an Italo-Greek war? You said that 5th and 10th Armies are in and around Tripoli keeping the British in Tripolitania so that they can be conveniently surrounded (but of course ensuring that they don't actually lose Tripoli in the meantime). Apart from occupation troops in France and garrisons watching over Yugoslavia and Greece, you have some 30-odd divisions in Spain and Spanish Morocco. What troops have the Italians got to get involved in Greece?

And anyway, even if there were, I thought in your scenario Mussolini was a simple puppet of Hitler with no independent say over the movement of Italian troops. If Hitler wouldn't let Mussolini attack Egypt (and Mussolini meekly complied), why would he allow them into Greece (and why would Mussolini be any less compliant)?

If there is no Greece then why are the British in Greece to be thrown out of it?

This is why it makes no sense to debate this scenario in anything other than chronological order. And at the moment we are still waiting to understand what the Germans are doing to tie down British forces so that we can make assumptions over how the British may react to the attack on Spain when that kicks off.


Great! Greece remains neutral. A definite win for the Axis.

warspite1

Why does Greece stay neutral? How do you know? We've not got anywhere near Greece yet. We are still waiting to hear what the Luftwaffe are doing so we can get Spain moving.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/4/2020 8:42:11 PM >

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 456
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 3:33:49 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

Curtis Lemay

We know that, historically, the Soviets occupied Japanese home islands


The Soviets did not occupy any of the Japanese Home Islands, MacArthur saw to that.

quote:

Curtis Lemay

No Barbarossa is what is different.


So without Barbarossa or any invasion of the Soviet Union, the Japanese have to wait. In the meantime, the Phillipines, Malaya, and the DEI get more men, weapons, equipment, and the men get more training.

quote:

Curtis Lemay

Great! Greece remains neutral. A definite win for the Axis.


Which then means with the Bulgarian-Turkish non-aggression pact, there is no invasion of Turkey. Bulgaria wanted to gain territory while its army did no fighting. It would have been difficult for the Germans to attack Turkey then from Bulgaria alone.



< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 9/4/2020 3:35:09 PM >

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 457
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 3:34:30 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

And you suggest getting involved in aggressive war in Spain (which would have been a MASSIVE decision for Hitler) would have been an even bigger deal for Mussolini.


A bigger deal than Barbarossa? (Which he was persuaded to join).
warspite1

Curtis Lemay.... no..... What are you talking about? You've so missed the point of that whole exchange it's incredible.

Did you not read what UP844 said and the point he was making specifically about Italy and why Spain was a big deal? What has any of that got to do, even remotely, with Barbarossa?

Why would attacking the Communist Soviet Union be a big deal for a Fascist country? It's been mentioned before but you still just seem to have no concept of political considerations.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 458
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 5:54:46 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

We interrupt this program to...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....



You are only 1/2 correct. War in Europe was first designed by SPI in 1976 and then it was revamped and somewhat redesigned in 1999. Decision Games did that revamping. Somewhere between 1980 and 1990 DG released a computer version which was based on one man's interpretation of the old SPI game but he relied 100% on the disputed official KC and LA errata groups. In 2004 or 2006 (I can no longer remember) DG release CWIE2 which was the second version of the board game in this one, I participated in and we included the rules for the original board game from SPI as well as (being mandated by DG) the DG version of the rules, we also included as optional rules the KC/LA rules. Lastly Steve Graham invented the attrition option and I helped him with that design.

So all this is to say that with CWIE2 you can explore the original SPI board game rules, the original DG board game rules, or use either as a starting point and add in some, none, or all of the LA/KC rules and lastly with all three of those options you can add in Steve's attrition option.

What I like about the attrition option that Steve came up with and Karl programmed is this. Whenever you move and or attack you units will be attrition-ed in some way. What that means is you may see on the map a "cookie-cutter" US 8-10 or German 6-5 but their actual combat values may be for the US 6.5 with a movement of 8 and for the German a 3.1 with a movement of 4. Or something to that effect. What this does is add in more uncertainty to what you have and what your opponent sees.

The WIE and CWIE2 systems are in no way as complex as say GG WitE/WitW for both combat and supply but they are still good for both board war games and with the attrition option.

My opinion is that CWIE2 is more of a typical old fashioned board type of war game with some of the newer features added in (attrition) and is more of a challenge and detailed than say Strategic Command or Warplan, but it does not have any AI nor the 'eye candy' that either of those two games have.

That said, I'll take GG WitW/WitE over WIE because GG games have a more realistic supply and combat simulation than any board war game could contrive.

Lastly, I think Bob Cross (aka Curtis Lemay) stated rather erroneously that one rail track could support an entire offensive consisting of Armies and Army Groups. The only truth to that kind of statement is that for a board war game he is right, the game designers used a super simplistic supply system in just about ever war game created from 1953 to 1999. You just can't create a board war game that has any supply rules based on reality because it would be a game in and of itself. The closest was SPI's Campaign for North Africa which was a sales flop and unplayable due to trying to do just that. That is where computer games outshine any board war game, in the data hiding of and implementation of supply rules.

The reason Bob Cross is so erroneously wrong on supply is most likely due to the fact that he has never played nor even understood GG WitE/WitW. That game reigns king above all games in not only it's supply model, but it's combat model and the level of details that are both under the hood and available to manipulate by the gamer.

Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast...


I only have experience with the SPI originals, having owned WiTW and WITE.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 459
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 6:58:11 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

We interrupt this program to...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
An old game by a defunct company that designed it with cookie cutter counters,(as in all German infantry is the same strength being used)....



You are only 1/2 correct. War in Europe was first designed by SPI in 1976 and then it was revamped and somewhat redesigned in 1999. Decision Games did that revamping. Somewhere between 1980 and 1990 DG released a computer version which was based on one man's interpretation of the old SPI game but he relied 100% on the disputed official KC and LA errata groups. In 2004 or 2006 (I can no longer remember) DG release CWIE2 which was the second version of the board game in this one, I participated in and we included the rules for the original board game from SPI as well as (being mandated by DG) the DG version of the rules, we also included as optional rules the KC/LA rules. Lastly Steve Graham invented the attrition option and I helped him with that design.

So all this is to say that with CWIE2 you can explore the original SPI board game rules, the original DG board game rules, or use either as a starting point and add in some, none, or all of the LA/KC rules and lastly with all three of those options you can add in Steve's attrition option.

What I like about the attrition option that Steve came up with and Karl programmed is this. Whenever you move and or attack you units will be attrition-ed in some way. What that means is you may see on the map a "cookie-cutter" US 8-10 or German 6-5 but their actual combat values may be for the US 6.5 with a movement of 8 and for the German a 3.1 with a movement of 4. Or something to that effect. What this does is add in more uncertainty to what you have and what your opponent sees.

The WIE and CWIE2 systems are in no way as complex as say GG WitE/WitW for both combat and supply but they are still good for both board war games and with the attrition option.

My opinion is that CWIE2 is more of a typical old fashioned board type of war game with some of the newer features added in (attrition) and is more of a challenge and detailed than say Strategic Command or Warplan, but it does not have any AI nor the 'eye candy' that either of those two games have.

That said, I'll take GG WitW/WitE over WIE because GG games have a more realistic supply and combat simulation than any board war game could contrive.

Lastly, I think Bob Cross (aka Curtis Lemay) stated rather erroneously that one rail track could support an entire offensive consisting of Armies and Army Groups. The only truth to that kind of statement is that for a board war game he is right, the game designers used a super simplistic supply system in just about ever war game created from 1953 to 1999. You just can't create a board war game that has any supply rules based on reality because it would be a game in and of itself. The closest was SPI's Campaign for North Africa which was a sales flop and unplayable due to trying to do just that. That is where computer games outshine any board war game, in the data hiding of and implementation of supply rules.

The reason Bob Cross is so erroneously wrong on supply is most likely due to the fact that he has never played nor even understood GG WitE/WitW. That game reigns king above all games in not only it's supply model, but it's combat model and the level of details that are both under the hood and available to manipulate by the gamer.

Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast...


I only have experience with the SPI originals, having owned WiTW and WITE.

Decision Games has proposed to update the WIE boardgame, if enough people pledge. https://shop.decisiongames.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=P3035
I agree with Zovs about supply.

It's interesting that SPI and GG followed the same development road map. War in the East --> War in the West --> WitE 2.0 --> War in Europe.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 460
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 7:48:49 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Since these board game developers are so good at their research, when are the ships coming out with warp and impulse drive like in the board game Star Fleet Battles? I mean, we should already have all of that technology, right?

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 461
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 8:24:36 PM   
UP844


Posts: 1662
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

A bigger deal than Barbarossa? (Which he was persuaded to join).


Mussolini was NOT persuaded to join Barbarossa: he decided to take part in the Crusade against Bolshevism as soon as he became aware of Hitler's intention to attack the USSR (in May 1941: this is an indication of how much Hitler trusted his allies). In 1941, Hitler tried to dissuade him from joining, pointing out that Italian troops would have been far more useful in North Africa.

The first Expeditionary corps included 1 motorised division and 2 infantry divisions (one of them semi-motorised by attaching truck units), plus several minor units, and a large amount of trucks.

In 1942, after suffering some losses in the winter campaign and needing extra units to secure the flanks of the advancing German armies, the German explicitly requested other troops, and the 8th Army (3 infantry divisions, 3 mountain divisions, 1 security division) was sent to Russia, together with many of the most modern artillery pieces and, again, a large amount of trucks (which would have been better used in North Africa).

As for Spain, for Mussolini it would have been politically difficult, to say the least, to sell an attack to Spain to his own Fascist party, many members and leaders of which fought in Spain to establish a fellow authoritarian regime (more Clerical-Nationalist than properly Fascist).

Even in case he succeeded, the enthusiasm for such an enterprise would have been pretty low, with the possible exception of the Italian Navy (even though it must be pointed out that Italian ships were designed for operations in the Mediterranean, not in the Atlantic: Italian submarines operating from Bordeaux required extensive refits when their weaknesses become clear).

As a side note, a German invasion of Spain would have worsened their relationship with the Catholic Church, not an insignificant factor in Italy.

_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

Long Range Fire (A7.22)........1/2 FP

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 462
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 10:53:29 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 6668
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline 		Bulgaria and Russia historically have been “friends”, hence why Bulgaria did not fight against Russia. Russia has always looked at Turkey as their sphere of influence and would not permit Germany attacking it.

_____________________________


Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 463
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 10:56:11 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 6668
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline 		Oh and according to my Dad Bulgarians hate both the Turks and the Greeks. My Dad is Bulgarian/Russian.



_____________________________


Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 464
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 11:23:27 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Oh and according to my Dad Bulgarians hate both the Turks and the Greeks. My Dad is Bulgarian/Russian.


Put a Turk, a Greek, and a Bulgarian in a room and you have a three way fight. Then add a Romanian, a Serb, and a Croat. That would be interesting.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 465
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/4/2020 11:35:19 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Going back to the initial question:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Having the similar quality equipment as the Germans and tanks equal to Panzer IVs would the War outcome been significantly different?

My, answer is Yes! the war may have actually been won by the axis side. In the least, it would have carried on for some years more.


The Italians had the Semovente 75mm. While it was not an assault gun, it did have decent armour. It was supposed to be mobile artillery but it did have deficits there but when used in a direct fire mode against armour firing HEAT, it was quite deadly. Make more of those and use them as assault guns since the early Mark IVs were just infantry support with short 75mm guns and functionally there is little difference. The Allies were chastised by this vehicle.

The Italian P-26 could probably have used an aircraft engine modified for it but the Italians did not do so. Otherwise, German tank engines could have been provided. This could have produced a tank much sooner, then another model could have been designed after the T-34 was captured and studied. The military wanted a diesel engine but the builders wanted a gasoline engine* but eventually both were used. The Germans could have given some engineering assistance so there could have been a larger turret with a three man crew, welded or cast armour instead of riveted plate armour and, at least initially, provisions for a larger than the 47mm high velocity gun when that would be developed.

*Do NOT use diesel fuel in a gasoline engine, it smells funny!

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Zap)
Post #: 466
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 4:13:36 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes the Soviets could be considered a threat - albeit for the reasons stated - less of one than might otherwise have been the case. But where does it state that the Japanese couldn't have taken the route they took? Where does it state that Barbarossa was a pre-requisite?

Japan had major issues to confront. If she didn't why was there even a debate about whether to go for a northern or southern strategy? Why was that even a thing? If the Soviets POINT BLANK, NO ARGUMENT, NO DEBATE, were so scared of the Soviet Union, why was there even a debate going on? That makes no sense.


I think I've repeated this enough: Regardless of what the debate was about, it wasn't resolved till Barbarossa resolved it.

quote:

I repeat, again, we know that having decided in 1940 that they were staying in China, the Japanese had to do something because their position was bad and only heading one way. Doing nothing was not an option for a country in their position. When someone has to do something then poor decisions are more likely to be made.


No. They didn't have to do anything that urgently. Because what they did didn't solve China at all.

quote:

Nomonhan showed and WWII showed that either power alone confronting Japan was something they couldn't deal with.

WWII hadn't happened yet. Only Nomonhan had happened, and that showed only that the USSR was something they couldn't deal with. British strength was exposed in France. The US was known only from WWI. Clearly, the Japs grossly underestimated them. So the Soviets are the real boogey man to the Japs. That's why Barbarossa is a prerequisite.

quote:

But you are treating Japan 1940 like having some rational, sensible, cool-headed Government. If that was so then they would have quit China (apart from the north) in 1940. If so they would not have antagonised the US to the extent they did. But we are taking Japan 1940. What Japan could deal with and what the Japanese leaders and hot heads thought they could deal with were billions of miles apart.


They were rational based upon the information they had. And, had the Germans gone on to knock the Soviets out of the war, as it appeared they were about to, the Pacific would have looked vastly different. The US would have had to have raised Soviet-sized land forces. That would sink a lot of fleets before they were ever constructed.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They were at peace with the US and the UK too.

warspite1

Except that is not the point.


That was exactly the point. Peace with Russia didn't guarantee peace with them in the future.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 467
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 4:23:38 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Soviets did not occupy any of the Japanese Home Islands, MacArthur saw to that.


They occupied Sakhalin and the Kurile islands. And McArthur wouldn't be there to stop them from going further in 1941.

quote:

So without Barbarossa or any invasion of the Soviet Union, the Japanese have to wait. In the meantime, the Phillipines, Malaya, and the DEI get more men, weapons, equipment, and the men get more training.


So do the Japanese.

quote:

Which then means with the Bulgarian-Turkish non-aggression pact, there is no invasion of Turkey. Bulgaria wanted to gain territory while its army did no fighting. It would have been difficult for the Germans to attack Turkey then from Bulgaria alone.


Bulgaria is already an Axis nation. And the Germans are already inside it - for Yugoslavia. Prior to Yugoslavia, German troops were passed through Hungary and Romania to get to Bulgaria. The Bulgarians don't need to participate in the Turkish offensive. They just need to let the Germans pass through. They will have a very hard time saying no.

And, if the Turks want to fight on the European side of the straits, that's a big win for the Axis.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 468
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 4:29:14 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

Mussolini was NOT persuaded to join Barbarossa: he decided to take part in the Crusade against Bolshevism as soon as he became aware of Hitler's intention to attack the USSR (in May 1941: this is an indication of how much Hitler trusted his allies). In 1941, Hitler tried to dissuade him from joining, pointing out that Italian troops would have been far more useful in North Africa.


It definitely wasn't his idea. So...he didn't just do his own thing. For whatever reason, he could see the merit in plans formulated by Germany.

quote:

In 1942, after suffering some losses in the winter campaign and needing extra units to secure the flanks of the advancing German armies, the German explicitly requested other troops, and the 8th Army (3 infantry divisions, 3 mountain divisions, 1 security division) was sent to Russia, together with many of the most modern artillery pieces and, again, a large amount of trucks (which would have been better used in North Africa).


Sure sounds like somebody got persuaded!!!

quote:

As for Spain, for Mussolini it would have been politically difficult, to say the least, to sell an attack to Spain to his own Fascist party, many members and leaders of which fought in Spain to establish a fellow authoritarian regime (more Clerical-Nationalist than properly Fascist).


Italy isn't attacking Spain. Just occupying it.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 469
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 5:08:36 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I think I've repeated this enough: Regardless of what the debate was about, it wasn't resolved till Barbarossa resolved it.

warspite1

Yes, you have. You are insistent that a Wiki article that actually talks about a different scenario is 'proof'. It's not of course, because it can't be. The whole point is its NOT Barbarossa that has to resolve it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

No. They didn't have to do anything that urgently. Because what they did didn't solve China at all.

warspite1

Yes, yes they did. Once again you seem unable to understand that what ultimately happened is irrelevant (other than it can be mentioned for context). We are talking about people making decisions at the time, based on what they know. Yes. Japan's position was dire. They would never have decided to quit China in 1940 if that was not the case. The fact that the 'missed the bus' mob got all excited by Germany and reversed the decision doesn't mean anything. Well by that I mean doesn’t mean anything other than Japan’s situation just went very quickly south - and would continue to do so unless she could take steps to improve her lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

That's why Barbarossa is a prerequisite.

warspite1

No - not at all. There is no point going further with this because it is just the same back and forth. So we should progress Europe instead.

So when are you going to confirm what the Luftwaffe are going to do in Northern France and provide more detail on the barges situation?


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/5/2020 8:36:56 PM >

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 470
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 5:31:18 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

As a side note, a German invasion of Spain would have worsened their relationship with the Catholic Church, not an insignificant factor in Italy.


Poland and France were also Catholic. Add Austria-Hungary from WWI - which Italy went to war with.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 471
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 6:40:25 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

Mussolini was NOT persuaded to join Barbarossa: he decided to take part in the Crusade against Bolshevism as soon as he became aware of Hitler's intention to attack the USSR


It definitely wasn't his idea. So...he didn't just do his own thing. For whatever reason, he could see the merit in plans formulated by Germany.

warspite1

Can I ask where you get your facts from? You have got so many wrong during this debate its staggering.

As has been pointed out to you already, the idea of putting Italian troops on the Eastern Front came from Mussolini. Indeed Hitler did not want the Italians help and actually scaled back the troop numbers Mussolini suggested (the initial Italian force was approx a corps).

It was only when things started going horribly wrong and Hitler was desperate that he asked for more troops (what became 8th Army).

So yes, it was Mussolini's idea.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/5/2020 6:41:40 PM >

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 472
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 6:47:35 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline 		From the Wikipedia article on ole Benito M.

Mussolini first learned of Operation Barbarossa after the invasion of the Soviet Union had begun on 22 June 1941, and was not asked by Hitler to involve himself.[165] Mussolini took the initiative in ordering an Italian Army Corps to head to the Eastern Front, where he hoped that Italy might score an easy victory to restore the Fascist regime's luster, which had been damaged by defeats in Greece and North Africa.[citation needed] On 25 June 1941, he inspected the first units at Verona, which served as his launching pad to Russia.[166] Mussolini told the Council of Ministers of 5 July that his only worry was that Germany might defeat the Soviet Union before the Italians arrived.[167] At a meeting with Hitler in August, Mussolini offered and Hitler accepted the commitment of further Italian troops to fight the Soviet Union.[168] The heavy losses suffered by the Italians on the Eastern Front, where service was extremely unpopular owing to the widespread view that this was not Italy's fight, did much to damage Mussolini's prestige with the Italian people.[168] So yes, like Warspite1 says, it was all his idea.

Weinberg, Gerhard (2005). A World in arms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ref 165, 67, 68

166 Marino, James I. (5 December 2016). "Italians on the Eastern Front: From Barbarossa to Stalingrad". Warfare History Network. Retrieved 17 November 2018.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 9/5/2020 6:54:37 PM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 473
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 9:19:38 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

As a side note, a German invasion of Spain would have worsened their relationship with the Catholic Church, not an insignificant factor in Italy.


Poland and France were also Catholic. Add Austria-Hungary from WWI - which Italy went to war with.


Poland, France, Austro-Hungary, and Italy did not persecute the Catholic Church. The Spanish Republicans did and Franco came to the Church's rescue. Then Hitler orders an attack attack on Franco's Spain?

But how does all of this actually help the Italian military improve their equipment?

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 474
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/5/2020 10:27:36 PM   
gamer78

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

As a side note, a German invasion of Spain would have worsened their relationship with the Catholic Church, not an insignificant factor in Italy.


Poland and France were also Catholic. Add Austria-Hungary from WWI - which Italy went to war with.


Yes also Austria-Hungary was always the competitor against Ottomans besides Russia. Even today Austrian airlines map has no Turkey in it by mistake. Anyway Austria-Hungary -Catholic- fought in the same side with Ottomans. last century military history was not about religion or culture only about demagogue leaders goal.




< Message edited by gamer78 -- 9/5/2020 10:43:35 PM >

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 475
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/6/2020 12:21:19 AM   
UP844


Posts: 1662
Joined: 3/3/2016
From: Genoa, Republic of Genoa (occupied by Italy)
Status: offline 		@ Curtis Lemay:

I think you are missing a point: over 75,000 Italian "volunteers"(*), including a great number of Fascist Party leading figures, fought with Franco in a war depicted as a "Crusade to free the Very Catholic Spain from the Godless and Atheist Bolsheviks". The 180° turn from "Francisco Franco, brother in arms and saviour of the Faith" to "Francisco Franco, enemy of the Empire" would have, as a minimum, affected the morale and effectiveness of any troops sent to Spain, even though they were limited to a garrison role.

(*) as in "Congratulations! You have just voluntereed to join the fight in Spain!"

This did not occur for France (and the fight was very brief, anyway); as for Poland, Italy never declared war on it, as has it already disappeared in 1940.

As regards to Austria-Hungary, it was a sort of "natural enemy": Italy fought three wars of Independence (in 1848-49, 1859 and 1866) against Austria-Hungary, and at the start of WW1 some north-eastern regions still belonged to the Austrian Empire (this was the main reason Italy entered WW1).

@RangerJoe:

quote:

But how does all of this actually help the Italian military improve their equipment?


It doesn't at all .

The best AFV the Italian industry managed to design was the Semovente (Self-Propelled Gun) you mentioned above. It was at least partially inspired by the German Sturmgeschutz, even though it was initially conceived as an artillery SPG. In fact, it was initially deployed in units (Gruppi = Groups, Italian artillery term for a battalion-sized unit) consisting of two batteries with 8 Semovente and 4 command/fire observation tanks.

Since it was the only Italian AFV that could destroy a Grant or a Sherman, it was subsequently uses as a tank destroyer with some success.
It inherited the mechanical problems affecting its parent hull, being underpowered (even though a bit less than the parent tank) and, as a consequence, not very reliable; as regards to armor, it was only slightly better protected than the M-series tanks, with 50mm (~ 2") vertical armor in the superstructure. On the other hand, it had a very low silhouette (1.85 m). It can be considered as roughly equivalent to early StuGs armed with the 75/24 gun, with less mobility (power-to-weight ratio was 8.5 or 9.86 HP/t for Semovente based on M13/40 and M13/41, vs. 14.5 HP/t for early StuGs).

Later versions were based on the M15/42 tank, with gasoline engine providing better mobility, and were also armed with a 75/34 gun (roughly equivalent to the M3 Grant gun). Those later versions saw little use by the Italian Army in 1943, when Germans and Italians briefly fought in Rome. They were also assigned to Tank Battalions, which had 1 company of M15/42 and 2 companies of Semovente (Another TO&E I found lists 1 tank and 2 semovente platoons per company).

The Germans used all those they captured, as well as several hundred built in 1943-1945, in the self-propelled company (theoretically equipped with Marders or, later, Hetzers) of the AT battalions of the Infantry Divisions that fought in Italy until the end of the war (there are several pictures of Semovente destroyed during the final Allied offensive in 1945). A few were armed with a 75/46 AA gun (roughly equivalent to a PaK 40) or with a 105/25 howitzer.

Here is a list of the German units that used the Semovente:

https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=244

A battery deployed in Sardinia would have been theoretically available for use by the Italian troops fighting with the Allies, but its use was never authorised (and, anyway, it would have been very difficult to keep them operational since the factory producing them was in my home town of Genoa, occupied by the Germans). They were (little) used in the immediate post-war period and were phased out with the arrival of the M7 Priest when Italy joined NATO.



_____________________________

Chasing Germans in the moonlight is no mean sport

Siegfried Sassoon

Long Range Fire (A7.22)........1/2 FP

(in reply to gamer78)
Post #: 476
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/6/2020 1:34:32 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		So all of this discussion does not answer the question of how to actually help improve the Italian military achieve Little Bennies objectives. I don't think that the Germans could have provided enough of their own equipment for the Italians as they were also providing some to other countries plus had their own equipment deficits. Some German engineering assistance and possibly retooling some Italian factories to produce some German equipment that the Italians needed could have helped, such as more powerful tank engines.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to UP844)
Post #: 477
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/6/2020 2:22:22 AM   
IslandInland


Posts: 891
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline 		Jesus Christ.

And still it goes on...



_____________________________

War In The East 2 Beta Tester and
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
XXXCorps

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 478
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/6/2020 2:32:14 AM   
IslandInland


Posts: 891
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

This thread gets better.

Absolute bullshit for the most part but it's fantastic!

I love it.


Keep it going....


Where's the monarch-worshipping warspite1 when you need him?



warspite1

Well I am glad you've had some enjoyment from this thread. Perhaps they will give us our own series and put it out on Dave.




I hope that becomes a thing.

Notwithstanding your monarch worshipping I am on your "side". Lemay is wrong on so many levels.

Go warspite1!




_____________________________

War In The East 2 Beta Tester and
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
XXXCorps

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 479
RE: The question to ask about The Italians - 9/6/2020 3:17:06 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IslandInland


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

This thread gets better.

Absolute bullshit for the most part but it's fantastic!

I love it.


Keep it going....


Where's the monarch-worshipping warspite1 when you need him?



warspite1

Well I am glad you've had some enjoyment from this thread. Perhaps they will give us our own series and put it out on Dave.




I hope that becomes a thing.

Notwithstanding your monarch worshipping I am on your "side". Lemay is wrong on so many levels.

Go warspite1!





+1

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to IslandInland)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: The question to ask about The Italians Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125