Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

That's like claiming victory because your team was leading at half-time and then got whipped in the second half. Rommel's problem was his supply lines. Whether he could have won ultimately is debatable, not because he didn't have the tactical ability, but because he didn't have the supply. But you are holding the length of supply line in North Africa as your 'proof' about Spain.....

I'm not claiming they achieved victory in North Africa. I'm claiming they had enough supply to take Tobruk. That does indeed prove that trucks can successfully supply the forces in Spain over a distance as long as from Tripoli to Tobruk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

I guess that the point, for anyone involved here, is: "What is your endgame on this thread?" If the answer is "To have someone say 'You know? I thought about what you wrote and I think that you are actually right!'" then I have a leaning tower for sale.

I think we've had a pretty good discussion on supply lines, regardless of all the other garbage.

quote:

See the physical map of Spain I attached. Overlay it with the Spanish path shown and you'll see that the mountainous regions are bypassed. There are hills, but no mountains. The mountains are not continuous across Spain, only in spots. So it is easy for supply columns to bypass them.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am not sure if you believe what you are writing or just attention seeking. Genuinely, your comments are becoming so bizarre the more this goes on.

a) where is the evidence that Britain were going to do that? Perhaps you think they possessed Iceland? or Crete?
b) how many territories were possessed by Britain, France, America as they came back at the Germans in WWII?
c) Every post you just make yourself look more and more 'limited' in your thinking, in your knowledge, in your analysis. So with 800 German aircraft in southern France, if Gibraltar is not going to be a viable port, why do you think Corunna or Cadiz or anywhere else on mainland Spain is going to be? I mean do you EVER bother to think anything through?

I've not said that they were going to incorporate them into their national territories. But they won't get out if the Spanish demand it. That's what matters.

Those planes were in France as well. The British still had to be on the mainland. They were not given access to FNA.

warspite1

You said the British were going to possess the islands. But now you play word games with possession and incorporation???? What is the difference?

Here's some of your quotes to help you:

quote:

They would possess them. And good luck to the Spanish getting them out.

What is that possession or 'incorporation'?

quote:

I don't think Franco will agree to British possession of their colonies

quote:

And the British are taking possession of the Canaries, as I've made clear elsewhere. If the Spanish can't get them to leave, that's possession.

.... or is that incorporation????

But regardless of the infantile word games, why would the Spanish demand the Royal Navy leave anyway? They will be happy for the Royal Navy to leave once the war is won - because that means Spain is no longer occupied by the Germans. In the absence of Gibraltar the Royal Navy need the Canaries.

No idea what you are talking about the British being on the mainland. But I'm sure it means something to you, but if you mean British troops on the mainland (and that's not a likely scenario) wouldn't that mean possession so Franco won't let them in anyway?

I still have no idea why you keep bringing French North Africa into the conversation.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Piteas

Traveling in Spain was hell in 1940. Those were my parents' childhood years and they always told me that going from Corunna to Madrid was like Operation Barbarossa: broken bridges, poorly paved or dirt roads, cut train tracks ... a country after three years of civil war .

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Piteas

Traveling in Spain was hell in 1940. Those were my parents' childhood years and they always told me that going from Corunna to Madrid was like Operation Barbarossa: broken bridges, poorly paved or dirt roads, cut train tracks ... a country after three years of civil war .

warspite1

That's a shame, if they'd known they could have asked Curtis Lemay for directions - he'd have found a route that by passed all the problems....

quote:

ORIGINAL: rico21

Does anyone know that the German preferred means of military transport is the train?

quote:

Dejalo ser

quote:

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

Dejalo ser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q5ZuTsrZuk

Dejalo ser, dejalo ser.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I just think you are still looking at this as a simple wargame. No logistics required. The whole point of this scenario from a German perspective is that it will put them in a better position than they were in in June 1941 historically. If not then its no good. The better start position in Turkey (if indeed that is achievable) will be squandered it they don't manage this properly.

quote:

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain (the shell requirements for Gibraltar will be prodigious), will take some time to build back up. And you need to follow your own arguments. You said that the German armies sitting around in northern France will give up their trucks to the army group in Spain. But now you say that the Germans have so many troops (what are they all front line units?) they can all afford to be used at the same time. Again, you seem to think so simply and just don't follow your own arguments. So yes, despite what you say, a timetable is incredibly important here.

quote:

And you talk about the army and seem to have totally forgotten the air force. How big was the Luftwaffe in 1940? You've got 800 aircraft in Spain alone (and that is for a Spain friendly scenario) but you seem to think they can just hang around in that theatre until 1942.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

AARRRGGHHHH!!!!! But this comes right back to the heart of the scenario and what was said almost from the outset. If you have everyone on the Axis side acting with hindsight and all the Allies unable to react to what is going on, then yes, you can make a case for a German victory. But what the hell is the point of that? Where is the fun, the challenge in that?

Right let's re-do WWII but the British start the war with 20 divisions and the French replace Gamelin with someone who is not fighting WWI and has given the French army an offensive doctrine. Right, that's the war over in 1939. Wow that was interesting wasn't it........

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This nonsense has got to stop Lemay. You are totally and utterly out of your depth here. Just clueless.

Vichy allowed the Germans the use of airbases in Syria. That was collaboration which was against their neutral status. But you think Vichy was an Axis ally????? Have a look at the US relationship with Vichy. You think they would have that relationship with an Axis ally after 10th December 1941?

Spain gave a degree of repair facilities and safe haven to u-boats - that was collaboration, against their mom-belligerent status - but you think they were German Allies????? Have a look at the US relationship with Spain and the supplies - especially food they gave to save them from famine. Again, you think the US saw them as Axis allies?

Sweden gave the Germans access to Swedish territory to allow troop movement - that was collaboration against their neutral status - you think Sweden was a German ally????

Some countries found themselves in situations that were highly uncomfortable - not wanting to be invaded and so needing to keep Germany sweet, but at the same time, not wanting to cheese the Allies off. They walked a difficult path. As a result there were things done by all countries caught in this situation. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM AXIS ALLIES. To suggest otherwise just shows a total lack of understanding and you are really embarrassing yourself here. Like with the trade embargoes and Japan, you don't even know your own country's WWII history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Whoops Curtis Lemay's credibility has finally fallen through the floor..... You consistently credit me with saying things I haven't said. You are thoroughly dishonest.

Where did you get that rail repair in impossible in Spain. No weasel words, or ignoring the post, please show me where I've said rail repair is impossible.

Where did I say that you did? I posted a rhetorical question. Because you certainly were implying it. But, now it's clear, the Germans can repair the rail lines.

quote:

Again you use the most ridiculous of examples - North Africa - to try and make your case in Spain.

Not only is it not a ridiculous example, it's the stake in the heart for the Spanish campaign. Rail repair isn't even necessary. North Africa proves it.

quote:

Minimum needs? For an entire army group.... erm..... To be fair, you obviously know more than the US Military and so I guess its only to be expected you know more than the logistics and supply guys that took the German army to the gates of Moscow and the Caucasus.

No. I only need to know as much as the logistic guys that took the German army to Tobruk and El Alamein.

Tripoli to Tobruk: 1257 km (and that's bypassing the Jabal Akhdar - using it totals 1450km).
Tripoli to El Alamein: 1784 km.
San Sebastian to Gibraltar: 1130 km - shorter that any route above. And nothing in Spain is further than that.

I don't know where you get those driving times from. The military travels slow unless it is returning from an FTX - especially for the Class VI items. But in Spain you have to slow down for those hills and mountains plus the tight curves - remember that any grade above 7% is an obstacle. The drivers and crew need rest, sustenance, plus the vehicles need fuel and maintenance. A lot of vehicles will break down, what happens with those? You can't leave them alone. Those convoys need escorts, so those members and vehicles also need to be taken care of.

The web site provided the times. I only wanted the distances. The times are irrelevant. And all the above was true in the Desert as well - they still took Tobruk.

warspite1

Speaking of irrelevant - so is the distance and so is the taking of Tobruk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Romania and Bulgaria are exactly to the point. You claim that Spain wouldn't flip to the Axis side because of the casualties they would take in an invasion. Yet that's exactly what Romania and Bulgaria did, under the same circumstances (conquest).

warspite1

Again, I don't understand the simplistic nature of your responses. I know less about Bulgaria, but know something of Romania in WWII. So the only reason you think the Romanians switched to the Soviets side, almost four years after joining the Axis, was because under the Germans they took heavy casualties? I mean.... I don't know where to even start with this.

But you think Spain (1940) and Romania (1940-1944) are operating "under the same circumstances"? Why? Please provide a paragraph just setting out how the situations are the same.

You're question was answered above (conquest). I'll try to rephrase it: Romania started out on the Axis side. It fought in Russia, taking thousands of losses to those Russians. The Russians went on to conquer Romania and occupy it. Romania then switched to the Russian side. This would be no different than Spain taking losses to the Germans as the Germans conquered Spain, and then Spain switching to the German side. Clearly, the examples of Romania and Bulgaria show that taking losses from and being conquered by one side does NOT prevent one from switching to that other side. In the case of weak nations, it might even make it probable: they bend with the wind.

warspite1

Okay so you are saying the same circumstances apply to Romania and Spain because they were conquered (although in Spain's case that hasn't happened, but will be, so that's by the by). And that's it........ So to be clear, there are no other considerations that need to be taken into account when trying to determine what Spain's response would have been to an invasion by Germany? Really? You genuinely don't understand that Spain and Romania's position in 1940 and 1944 are so very different on so many levels?

I'm saying the circumstance of losing thousands to and being invaded and conquered by - then switching to that other side is the same.

warspite1

Yes I know WHAT you are saying. I have no idea why you would think its appropriate. I mean in World War II Britain and Japan were in exactly the same circumstances weren't they. They were both islands and both had an empire. There. Exactly the same

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I just think you are still looking at this as a simple wargame. No logistics required. The whole point of this scenario from a German perspective is that it will put them in a better position than they were in in June 1941 historically. If not then its no good. The better start position in Turkey (if indeed that is achievable) will be squandered it they don't manage this properly.

And if they possess Gibraltar, Suez, and the Turkish border with the Russians they will be in a much better position.

The whole thing comes down to just how tough the Spanish and Turkish operations are going to be. You're trying to build them up into supermen. They aren't.

quote:

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain (the shell requirements for Gibraltar will be prodigious), will take some time to build back up. And you need to follow your own arguments. You said that the German armies sitting around in northern France will give up their trucks to the army group in Spain. But now you say that the Germans have so many troops (what are they all front line units?) they can all afford to be used at the same time. Again, you seem to think so simply and just don't follow your own arguments. So yes, despite what you say, a timetable is incredibly important here.

The Spanish army is so small and of such low quality, destroying it can't amount to much of a supply drain. There has to be a permanent garrison in France regardless of what happens anywhere else. But they're not going to be doing much of anything except sitting on the coast. They won't miss some borrowed trucks.

quote:

And you talk about the army and seem to have totally forgotten the air force. How big was the Luftwaffe in 1940? You've got 800 aircraft in Spain alone (and that is for a Spain friendly scenario) but you seem to think they can just hang around in that theatre until 1942.....

There would be an initial Luftwaffe presence just to eliminate the Spanish AF. After than, they only need an amount sufficient to handle the tiny Spanish army. Those 800 planes are your figure for Gibraltar only. They will only be needed upon the assault on Gibraltar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know anything about the taking of Tobruk? Clearly not, but that is not important. What is important:

Why are you fixated on Tobruk - you know this was nowhere near their goal and that Tobruk is in Libya right?

So if the Germans had enough supply to take Tobruk from the green 2nd South African Division, that proves all your arguments about supply.... in Spain?????

quote:

Did Rommel have an army group in Libya? No, so that is not a comparison - I ask again, what does this one isolated case have to do with Spain?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Back to Greece:

Note the third map of the Greek campaign I've now provided.

Note the two maps of routes from Athens to Albania that don't go through Salonika.

Of course, I'm going to be told that those routes didn't exist in 1941. But the first map counters that. You can trace the arrows back from Athens all the way to Monastir. There is no way a path from Salonika to the Albanian front can be traced without crossing that line of arrows.

This shows, once again, how easy it is to misunderstand a snippet of text in a book.

warspite1

Uh oh, the maps are out. Right, third request. Please tell me which bit of the professionals of the US army saying the following was taken out of context by me:

"The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions".

Which bit did I mis-understand or take out of context?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I've told you my thoughts on Vichy: The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied. And I'll ask you again: Why would the Germans ever agree to stay out of Vichy if that wasn't the French purpose of Vichy? And I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in that till you answer, because there isn't any answer, except that that was the purpose of Vichy!!!

warspite1

And still you won't do the simplest of things. This is your scenario, this is your case to make. All I've asked you to do on a number of occasions now is to provide an outline, a timeline, of how a 'Vichy' Spain comes about. Show us who you think instigates the idea? What does it seek to achieve? Why is it accepted by both sides?

Truly, if your explanation for the reasoning behind Vichy France and it's creation is "The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied" then I suggest you have much reading to do on the subject before you can even begin to talk about 'Vichy' Spain.

As for the question - apologies I don't even recall you asking me the question. You may delight in "rubbing my nose in it" but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am always more than happy to answer any question. Before doing so however, you would need to let me know what it means please. I don't really understand why you are asking why the Germans would agree to stay out of Vichy. Are you sure this is not a question for someone else? Ranger Joe perhaps? I genuinely can't remember the background to this or where it comes from at all.

warspite1

Well? I thought you were going to "rub my nose in it" (whatever that means). So when I asked you to explain what your question meant, so that I could answer it, you decide not to respond....

So do you want me to answer this question or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the BEF is still in France, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

If the BEF has been destroyed, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

If the BEF was evacuated without its equipment, it would not be a fool's errand - unless you are assigned to do it.

Without a navy or amphibious transport, without strategic bombers and escorts, it's a fools errand.

See hat I mean about leaving it up to you that it is a fool's errand? The Nazi Germans did not need a strategic air force to invade England, a tactical one would do.

The Nazi Germans could have had the sea lift on the channel if they needed it since they did get it there in actuality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Supplies did not capture Tobruk, troops did. What were the state of the defenses when the Germans liberated Tobruk?

quote:

The German Armee units in North Afrika did not need that many supplies compared to what as needed for Spain. Where would those supplies come from? It would also have been a different type of warfare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This says much. You think its been a good debate about supply?

quote:

Well let's see what you brought to the party:

- You've got your facts about rail supply totally and utterly wrong because you used a wiki article on 21st century US rail roads to 'prove' what the war-ravaged Spanish rail system in 1940 could provide and concluded that the rail system could handle all the German requirements and more....

quote:

- Having had it proved by the Germans own numbers, that this was complete nonsense, you then sought to 'prove' the supply of an entire army group in Spain by truck is not a problem, and you evidenced this by showing that Rommel took Tobruk (which you appear totally fixated upon for some unknown reason) and his largely understrength force (about an army in size) got its supply from trucks and they like, really travelled a long way and everything ......

quote:

- In addition you have effectively rubbished the professional supply officers of the German army who planned Felix, as a bunch of amateurs (you've written off and dismissed just about everything they've said about going to war - even with Spain as an ally). As an example their concerns about the state of the roads for the 1,200kn march were "barely adequate; narrow, winding and laid through passes 2,000 metres high, where ice and fog would present difficulties. Wagner reckoned with major demands on drivers and equipment (particularly engines, tyres and brakes)..."

But you know better apparently and said:

quote:

See the physical map of Spain I attached. Overlay it with the Spanish path shown and you'll see that the mountainous regions are bypassed. There are hills, but no mountains. The mountains are not continuous across Spain, only in spots. So it is easy for supply columns to bypass them.

What did those stoopid German officers who surveyed the ground know anyway? If only they had access to a google map.....

quote:

- You also effectively state the US army team that wrote a study of the Balkan Campaign are a bunch of incompetents...

quote:

...who don't have the skills you do in being able to do a google map search and you've 'proved' supply was possible from Athens because:

a) you've produced maps with a lot of arrows of German forces heading south.....

quote:

b) you've produced modern day maps showing roads between Athens and Albania.

quote:

But as ever, in your simplistic and myopic view, you've given no consideration to the distance from Athens to Albania (compared to Salonika to Albania) and whether supply considerations could also have been affected by availability of trucks or rail lines. Do you know the Greek logistical situation in 1940? Has that even crossed your mind? There were 14 divisions of the 1st Greek Army to supply. That is a lot of provisions daily. But you see that sort of detail is just unimportant to you. So long as you prove there was a road between Athens and Albania in 2020 then all other considerations - including the conclusions of the US Army - are simply not worth considering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know anything about the taking of Tobruk? Clearly not, but that is not important. What is important:

Why are you fixated on Tobruk - you know this was nowhere near their goal and that Tobruk is in Libya right?

So if the Germans had enough supply to take Tobruk from the green 2nd South African Division, that proves all your arguments about supply.... in Spain?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

quote:

Did Rommel have an army group in Libya? No, so that is not a comparison - I ask again, what does this one isolated case have to do with Spain?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Romania and Bulgaria are exactly to the point. You claim that Spain wouldn't flip to the Axis side because of the casualties they would take in an invasion. Yet that's exactly what Romania and Bulgaria did, under the same circumstances (conquest).

warspite1

Again, I don't understand the simplistic nature of your responses. I know less about Bulgaria, but know something of Romania in WWII. So the only reason you think the Romanians switched to the Soviets side, almost four years after joining the Axis, was because under the Germans they took heavy casualties? I mean.... I don't know where to even start with this.

But you think Spain (1940) and Romania (1940-1944) are operating "under the same circumstances"? Why? Please provide a paragraph just setting out how the situations are the same.

You're question was answered above (conquest). I'll try to rephrase it: Romania started out on the Axis side. It fought in Russia, taking thousands of losses to those Russians. The Russians went on to conquer Romania and occupy it. Romania then switched to the Russian side. This would be no different than Spain taking losses to the Germans as the Germans conquered Spain, and then Spain switching to the German side. Clearly, the examples of Romania and Bulgaria show that taking losses from and being conquered by one side does NOT prevent one from switching to that other side. In the case of weak nations, it might even make it probable: they bend with the wind.

warspite1

Okay so you are saying the same circumstances apply to Romania and Spain because they were conquered (although in Spain's case that hasn't happened, but will be, so that's by the by). And that's it........ So to be clear, there are no other considerations that need to be taken into account when trying to determine what Spain's response would have been to an invasion by Germany? Really? You genuinely don't understand that Spain and Romania's position in 1940 and 1944 are so very different on so many levels?

I'm saying the circumstance of losing thousands to and being invaded and conquered by - then switching to that other side is the same.

warspite1

Yes I know WHAT you are saying. I have no idea why you would think its appropriate. I mean in World War II Britain and Japan were in exactly the same circumstances weren't they. They were both islands and both had an empire. There. Exactly the same

Clearly, these examples show that taking losses and being invaded and conquered is no impediment to joining the conquering side.

So, German conquest of Spain would not be an impediment to making a deal with the Axis. And, since Franco has no where else to turn, why wouldn't he make that deal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know anything about the taking of Tobruk? Clearly not, but that is not important. What is important:

Why are you fixated on Tobruk - you know this was nowhere near their goal and that Tobruk is in Libya right?

So if the Germans had enough supply to take Tobruk from the green 2nd South African Division, that proves all your arguments about supply.... in Spain?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

quote:

Did Rommel have an army group in Libya? No, so that is not a comparison - I ask again, what does this one isolated case have to do with Spain?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.