Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I would say that the obvious point of Vichy was to create an large enclave within France that didn't have Germans occupying it. Spain would have the same desire.

warspite1

Erm..... Curtis Lemay that answer is absolutely staggering . You appear to have not the first clue about Vichy France.... wow. How can you be comfortable suggesting things you clearly just don't even bother to try and understand?

quote:

warspite1

Erm......

a) why would the British be occupying any part of French North Africa? That is a monumentally ridiculous question to ask - goodness alone knows what point you were trying to make or why you even thought that question in the slightest bit relevant to the situation under discussion....

quote:

b) The Spanish wouldn't be allowing the British to occupy the Canaries would they?????? The Spanish have just been back-stabbed by their 'friends'. As is very common, we now have a situation where Spain's enemy's (Germany) enemy (Britain) has just become their 'friend'. Did the Greeks deny the British the use of Crete as part of their assisting Greece???? Once again you seem to have got confused over something really very simple.

quote:

c) The British agree to do all they can to assist the Spanish, but can't do anything if Gibraltar is negated by bombing and ultimately captured. So they ask the Spanish to allow the navy the use of the Canaries as a Gibraltar replacement. In return the British give the Spanish as much assistance as possible (plus certain promises re the future). From this base, the Royal Navy can provide naval gunfire support, they can provide air support from Spanish Morocco.

quote:

The British will also be assisting getting troops from Spanish Morocco and the islands to the mainland.

quote:

You think the British Government wouldn't work with a reprehensible regime in order to fight Germany? The British were giving hefty bribes to Spanish generals and politicians to keep them onside. They would do what it took.

And let's face it, Britain (and the USA) allied with the USSR - I don't think dealing with Spain is going to trouble Churchill. Hell, the Greek Government the British tried to assist was hardly a model of democracy was it?

quote:

But of course its on the map. The Canaries were important to both Britain and Germany. This game you've based an entire scenario on and have said how realistic it is MUST have the Canaries in it.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

Some Frenchmen did as in De Gaulle but not Petain. The government gave up, so yes, no Honor.

Why should Spain have more?

Because of the Spanish Code of Honor.

Here is an example:

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/900855625/a-court-case-in-spain-raises-hope-for-justice-for-priests-killed-in-el-salvador

quote:

It is in Franco's interest to keep things the way that they are/were. No war, rebuild the country, get revenues from the importation of goods with re-export to Germany plus the importation of goods from Germany with re-export.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists.

Again, all the more reason for Franco to make a deal.

The Spanish Maqui were fighting the Nazi Germans, why would Franco want them back?

Why would France make a deal because of this? The Spanish Maqui invaded Spain in 1944 after most of France was liberated. So why would Franco make a deal with Nazi Germany then? The few guerillas in Spain could be and were relatively easily handled by the Nationalists, why did Spain need the German Army to help.

He wouldn't be handling them easily if his forces have been wiped off the map. So, if he wants to deal with them, he needs to make a deal.

He dealt with them by letting Germany deal with them. "Let you and him fight!" So no deal was fine with Franco.

quote:

Hannibal had it easy crossing the Alps against no enemy, didn't he? Germanyhad such a easy time sending troops, equipment, and supplies directly from Germany to Italy that they had to go through Switzerland - even though, at the time, Germany and Italy had a common border with road and railroad links.

quote:

How about this:

quote:

Mountain warfare refers to warfare in the mountains or similarly rough terrain. This type of warfare is also called Alpine warfare, after the Alps mountains. Mountain warfare is one of the most dangerous types of combat as it involves surviving not only combat with the enemy but also the extreme weather and dangerous terrain. Mountain ranges are of strategic importance since they often act as a natural border, and may also be the origin of a water source of (e.g. Golan Heights – water conflict). Attacking a prepared enemy position in mountain terrain requires a greater ratio of attacking soldiers to defending soldiers than would be needed on level ground.[1] Mountains at any time of year are dangerous – lightning, strong gusts of wind, falling rocks, extreme cold, and crevasses are all additional threats to combatants. Movement, reinforcements, and medical evacuation up and down steep slopes and areas where even pack animals cannot reach involves an enormous exertion of energy.
Contents[show]
.
.
.
It is generally accepted that the ratio required for the force launching an offensive to have a good chance of success is 3:1. In mountainous terrain, the required ratio is much more.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Mountain_warfare

Then read this and maybe actually even learn something:

FM 3-97.6 (90-6)
MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS
NOVEMBER 2000
HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-97-6.pdf

So RTFM!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

My point - as well you know - concerned the supply of the 2nd Greek Army and a US military study that showed their supply was via Salonika. If you want to answer that - WITHOUT reference to Yugoslavia(!) then fine. If you don't want to debate any further or stick with your avowed position that the US military don't know what they are taking about, then that's also fine. I will go with the US military study over your war game map, a Wiki map and a war game rule set anytime.

My point is that you are misinterpreting what the study really meant. That's obvious because the maps I posted make clear that the path from Athens to those lines were passable.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Again, another point that we've come full circle on. You won't budge because you don't like historical quotes, speeches, directives and diary entries etc. Well I can't make you agree, and clearly neither of us are going to budge on this issue.

I have provided examples of Mussolini's comments that confirm what Italy's role was in the war as he saw it. I have provided quotes from both Badoglio and Mussolini on their opinion of Germany and Italy relying on German help at the outset of the war. I've shown how Mussolini was determined to fight a parallel war for the glory of Italy.

This isn't my opinion - this is all on historical record.

Again, just words. And circumstances would be different if the Germans adopt a Med Strategy. Clearly Mussolini was trying to secure Suez. Securing Gibraltar would be just as important. The Germans have a plan for doing this. Why would he join Barbarossa but not this?

quote:

But you think Mussolini was happy to subordinate all of Italy's plans to German will, you believe Mussolini would be happy to allow Hitler to determine where the Italian Army would be deployed (secondary roles).

You still believe this despite the fact that Mussolini had seen first hand (after the fall of France), that Germany decides how the spoils are carved up and Italy got nothing. Given the reasons Mussolini went to war, you don't think that is important?

I think winning the war and surviving would have been important. And the operations for Gibraltar and Suez definitely fit Italy's national interests.

quote:

And why are you happy to believe this? Because Mussolini offered Italian troops to Hitler for Barbarossa.... You've totally ignored the position Mussolini was in when he made that offer. I see you've now rather slyly introduced "He was persuaded to reinforce those troops" (no doubt referring to the creation of 8th Army rather than the point you were originally proved wrong on (initial Italian contribution). Very disingenuous but this still doesn't help you - in fact it makes your argument even weaker. Hitler only asked for more troops because of the losses suffered by the German Army and the need to plug the gaps. Mussolini agreed (against his generals wishes and the wishes of the Italian population) because he was, by 1942, totally reliant upon Hitler for his own survival.

Again, he joined a German operation, and he was persuaded to reinforce it.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As the Germans made absolutely clear in preparing for Felix (a friendly Spain scenario) we are not talking about simple repair of railroads.

Of course we are. How much repair is required is at issue. Did I mention yet that they have till 1942??

quote:

You have admitted yourself that the Germans need to beat the Spanish quickly.

That's not what I said.

quote:

Indeed you said they would as Germany vs Spain would be a simple 'blitz' operation.

I still think it will be very easy. The size and quality of the Spanish force trumps logistics and terrain.

quote:

But now, you seem to believe the Germans have time to take ground, then rip us the existing railroad and essentially start afresh on new track....

They do have plenty of time. And I don't think the repair will be equivalent to starting from scratch.

quote:

There is one rail line and you are now saying the Germans won't be using it at all while they re-gauge the single rail line. You are ignoring the need to get artillery and ammunition down to Gibraltar (not to mention supplying the troops fighting the Spanish). You've (presumably) bothered to read the German concerns about the width of the roads, their winding nature, the sheer number of tunnels and bridges that can easily be sabotaged (and no, digging out a caved in tunnel is not the work of a moment).

Take North Africa: The distance from Tripoli to El Alamein was 1781 km. Axis truck convoys made the entire journey and back. Distance from San Sebastian to Gibraltar was 1130 km. So, the entire country is within road supply range if necessary.

quote:

But how long will this take? Well you've now completely changed your mind and said the Germans have until 1942!!!!!!!

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Back full circle once again. So let's be clear on this:

- you don't pay any attention to the professionals in the US military

I disagree with your interpretation.

quote:

- you don't pay any attention to the professionals in the German Army

Again, not with your interpretation.

quote:

- you don't pay any attention to records, diaries, directives, and speeches made by historical figures (but do pay attention to certain actions undertaken by those characters even though they are different - and set in a different context - to what we are discussing)

Actions trump words.

quote:

- you simply ignore historical precedent
- you simply ignore (or don't know about - and don't then seek to understand) key historical facts that are completely relevant to this scenario

No idea what that means. Clearly, different circumstances will change what happened historically.

quote:

- you don't engage with Piteas, a Spanish forumite (we are discussing an invasion of Spain)
- you barely engaged with UP844, an Italian forumite (we are discussing the actions of Italy and what she would do in 1940)

I guess, since I'm an American, you will now defer to me on anything I say about America's possible actions.

quote:

- you do pay unerring attention to anything a professional wargame designer says (regardless of whether you understand the reason for the rule or not). Essentially you are saying this. If rule 15(b) says x happens, then x happens and that MUST be FACT.

No. I'm not saying it is a fact, but the opinions of those designers are material to the discussion.

quote:

- you do cling to a Wiki article as proof of something Japan would do, even though it proves nothing because the circumstances were different

It proved my point: Barbarossa was the trigger for Japan's aggressive actions in 1941.

quote:

- you are more than happy to rely on Wiki articles about rail roads that bear not the slightest relevance to what is being discussed

They are extremely relevant, even if they require modification to fit the European system.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Use that time to blitz through Turkey and Spain.

Which they will.

quote:

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

Right. Where does that say anything about how long it will take? Of course they will want to get started as soon as possible and get finished as soon as possible. But I did NOT say it will be done quickly (or slowly). I haven't said anything about how long it will take. But they do have plenty of time.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

At the very minimum there is a need to determine that a Gibraltar operation is feasible and that means a lot (as per historical) of intelligence missions with Spanish assistance. So long as Gibraltar is considered feasible the Spanish operation can start.

Again, why does doing this require that the Germans wait till after France? Why can't they get all discussions with Franco out of the way long before, since they know they are going to do a Med Strategy?

quote:

Hahahahaha nice little sly insertion of the thoroughly ridiculous rule 15(b) there..... Getting to Madrid, by itself, means jack. They also need to get to Barcelona in the northeast, they need to get to Corunna in the northwest, they need to get to Valencia, Malaga, Seville, Murcia... in other words, the Germans need to beat a very angry, very united, and very desperate Spanish population.

SPI says otherwise. And, let's be clear, the Spanish army is smaller than the BEF (which was only about 10% of the force the Germans were facing in France) and of much poorer quality. United? Republicans and Nationalists?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I would say that the obvious point of Vichy was to create an large enclave within France that didn't have Germans occupying it. Spain would have the same desire.

warspite1

Erm..... Curtis Lemay that answer is absolutely staggering . You appear to have not the first clue about Vichy France.... wow. How can you be comfortable suggesting things you clearly just don't even bother to try and understand?

What have I got wrong? The whole point of Vichy obviously was to keep the Germans out of much of France. What other benefit would there have been?

quote:

warspite1

Erm......

a) why would the British be occupying any part of French North Africa? That is a monumentally ridiculous question to ask - goodness alone knows what point you were trying to make or why you even thought that question in the slightest bit relevant to the situation under discussion....

Exactly, and just as ridiculous for the British to occupy the Canaries when they could have achieved the same on the mainland.

quote:

b) The Spanish wouldn't be allowing the British to occupy the Canaries would they?????? The Spanish have just been back-stabbed by their 'friends'. As is very common, we now have a situation where Spain's enemy's (Germany) enemy (Britain) has just become their 'friend'. Did the Greeks deny the British the use of Crete as part of their assisting Greece???? Once again you seem to have got confused over something really very simple.

Crete was very close to the battle area. The Canaries were not.

quote:

c) The British agree to do all they can to assist the Spanish, but can't do anything if Gibraltar is negated by bombing and ultimately captured. So they ask the Spanish to allow the navy the use of the Canaries as a Gibraltar replacement. In return the British give the Spanish as much assistance as possible (plus certain promises re the future). From this base, the Royal Navy can provide naval gunfire support, they can provide air support from Spanish Morocco.

By the time Gibraltar is under fire, Vichy Spain will be established.

quote:

The British will also be assisting getting troops from Spanish Morocco and the islands to the mainland.

Why would the Spanish need any more help with that than the French did from FNA? Why would they want the British to interfere with it?

quote:

You think the British Government wouldn't work with a reprehensible regime in order to fight Germany? The British were giving hefty bribes to Spanish generals and politicians to keep them onside. They would do what it took.

And let's face it, Britain (and the USA) allied with the USSR - I don't think dealing with Spain is going to trouble Churchill. Hell, the Greek Government the British tried to assist was hardly a model of democracy was it?

?? What was that about?

quote:

But of course its on the map. The Canaries were important to both Britain and Germany. This game you've based an entire scenario on and have said how realistic it is MUST have the Canaries in it.....

The game map. Why would it need the Canaries?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

on rule '15(b)'.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

on rule '15(b)'.

Warspite, everyone that’s in the know, knows it’s rule case [34.57] for Pete’s sake!



[34.57]
Surrender: Spain surrenders when Madrid
is occupied by Enemy units. Spanish units are then
removed from play. Spain becomes Axis when the
Political Point Level reaches 75.

Rule 15 is the Weather rules...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

on rule '15(b)'.

Warspite, everyone that’s in the know, knows it’s rule case [34.57] for Pete’s sake!



[34.57]
Surrender: Spain surrenders when Madrid
is occupied by Enemy units. Spanish units are then
removed from play. Spain becomes Axis when the
Political Point Level reaches 75.

Rule 15 is the Weather rules...

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Why does it matter about what SPI said back in the 1970s? They're gone State of the art has moved forward over the decades. From what I understand with the game Warplan, taking the capital is not enough.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If/When Spain is attacked by Nazi Germany, the British would probably be welcomed into the Canary Islands.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Could you imagine driving a vehicle in the mountains during freezing rain?

Or even walking some hills in that type of weather? Much less running them? Or trying to attack up these hills in full field gear? Yes, under fire!

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Why does it matter about what SPI said back in the 1970s? They're gone State of the art has moved forward over the decades. From what I understand with the game Warplan, taking the capital is not enough.

warspite1

Don't be ridiculous Aurelian. EVERY European country surrendered when the capital was occupied. Curtis Lemay has said so. And if you don't believe him, then have a look at Rule 15(b). All the proof you need. End of Discussion .

Back in the real world....

Yes, a lot of games don't set such an arbitrary rule for surrender. As an example in World In Flames, as a rule, a player needs to take out the production centres - in the case of Spain that would be Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid.

But then I wouldn't seek to base any counterfactual on a rule in any wargame alone. Not unreasonably, I would want to see the thinking behind the rule at the very least.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, a lot of games don't set such an arbitrary rule for surrender. As an example in World In Flames, as a rule, a player needs to take out the production centres - in the case of Spain that would be Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Sorry my comments about the rules were suppose to be done in jest.

I think that in the context of discussing Med. Front strategy, using war games as a secondary tool is still valid (at least from my perspective). I own the computerized version of both War in Europe (which implements both the 1976 SPI rules, the 1999 rules and the 2005 implementation of further rules), and MWiF. I also own WarPlan and the Strategic Command series. So I like seeing how each of these deals with specific issues and just find it interesting how these various games have implemented various rules regarding alt history to one extent or another.

But I agree with what and where Warspite is going with this discussion, i.e. using historical documents and professional military staff studies. I am under no illusion that war game designers (whether they are from the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's) have to make things fit into whatever design and or physical limits they are facing.

So I guess my throwing in some war game stuff was just to throw in some other ideas for discussion.

As far as war games I think I am still searching for one that can somehow combine elements of SPI's War in Europe, ADG's World in Flames and GDW's The Europa series into one big massive global strategic with operational elements that is pretty realistic and fun to play. The 'Holy Grail' if you will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Drat. Forgot about that rule.. But to return to reality. Let's say that the Axis invade Spain. Just what would stop the British from taking the Canaries if they felt it necessary?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

And as mentioned in the article linked above, Franco expected to lose the Canary islands and other overseas possessions if Gibraltar was taken.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Yes, a lot of games don't set such an arbitrary rule for surrender. As an example in World In Flames, as a rule, a player needs to take out the production centres - in the case of Spain that would be Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid.

I would like to point out that Spain fights on from overseas in MWIF even after mainland Spain has fallen. No 'Vichy' Spain here. The Canaries makes for good Allied bases during the struggle in the Atlantic. And Spanish Morocco is nice to base Allied forces for support of Gibraltar. Or, if Gibraltar falls to Axis, annoy the Axis forces trying to use Gibraltar as a base.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Sorry my comments about the rules were suppose to be done in jest.

I think that in the context of discussing Med. Front strategy, using war games as a secondary tool is still valid (at least from my perspective). I own the computerized version of both War in Europe (which implements both the 1976 SPI rules, the 1999 rules and the 2005 implementation of further rules), and MWiF. I also own WarPlan and the Strategic Command series. So I like seeing how each of these deals with specific issues and just find it interesting how these various games have implemented various rules regarding alt history to one extent or another.

But I agree with what and where Warspite is going with this discussion, i.e. using historical documents and professional military staff studies. I am under no illusion that war game designers (whether they are from the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's) have to make things fit into whatever design and or physical limits they are facing.

So I guess my throwing in some war game stuff was just to throw in some other ideas for discussion.

As far as war games I think I am still searching for one that can somehow combine elements of SPI's War in Europe, ADG's World in Flames and GDW's The Europa series into one big massive global strategic with operational elements that is pretty realistic and fun to play. The 'Holy Grail' if you will.

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