Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More lies to hide your total lack of knowledge....

So we were talking about Spain at this point and indeed you said:

quote:

This is ridiculous. It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them.

Every urban area has marshalling yards where trains can be held while unloaded. Of course such locations would be behind front lines.

Which part of that comment was you not referring to the Spanish rail system being able to more than handle anything required by the Germans? Reprehensible behaviour on your part Lemay.

Did I really need to state that the Spanish lines would have to be repaired - just as they have to be in every military campaign?!?! And, even in your quote above, I still do not mention the Spanish rail system. The French rail system will get the supplies to the rail head at the border and then trucks can deliver the supplies the rest of the way.

warspite1

Thank-you for this post. If you ever try and suggest that you have the moral high ground in ANY debate I will have this to hand.

Lets be completely clear here. You said:

"I never mentioned the Spanish rail system".

I said that was untrue and that you did. To evidence this I provide a post from you that says:

"It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them".

And how do you respond to that?

"I still do not mention the Spanish rail system".

So in saying that a rail line can handle vast amount of supplies and that it can supply more than enough for the Spanish campaign, you would have us believe that you were not suggesting that the Spanish rail system could supply the Germans with all it needed???? But that was the whole point of you providing that irrelevant Wiki article on US railroads in the 21st Century - because you were seeking to prove that the Germans could use the Spanish rail network.

I am surprised you allowed yourself to type this response out. Not your finest hour Lemay. Pretty shocking to be honest - along with the post about the Axis allies, you've really shown your level here. You are so desperate to be right over every single point, that you've resorted to this....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

warspite1

....and you re-appear on the thread just to take us right back to where we started....

If, if, if..... and I've asked you to make a proper case, and you not only refuse to do so, but what little effort you have put in has been largely based on incorrect information, questionable - and in some cases frankly bizarre - assumptions, and a refusal to believe the professionals of the German army (though you believe them when it suits you).

Re the bit in bold, once again a complete lie that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. First request.

quote:

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain...

Supermen!

Reality: The supply cost of taking Spain will be directly proportionate to the size and quality of the Spanish Army. To review: Tiny and puny. The supply costs will be light because of this.

warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Second request.

My part in bold.

warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Third request.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But how can that sentence be taken out of context or mis-understood? Look at it this way:

A US military study confirms that supply for the Greek 1st Army was centred on the port of Salonika. What does that mean? Could that have been the sole port of supply?, the primary port? What? Well they go onto say that if Salonika was taken then that would cut off their supply. That would suggest that Salonika was either the sole supply port or the one that provided the vast majority of supply doesn't it?

Let's be honest here. I don't know. You don't know. So I've used this US military study as my supporting evidence. What do you do? Do you ask to see the military study? Have you shown the slightest interest in the study? No.

Okay, so why are you so keen to rubbish such a source without even seeing it yourself? Presumably you do that because you have evidence yourself that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? But you don't. You don't have any evidence from any military sources - whether Greek, British, German or Italian. You don't have any 3rd party sources either.

So what convinces you that the US military guys are total idiots who have no clue what they are putting their name to? Well, you have some maps from a WWII Atlas and from Wiki.... And that shows there was at least two roads that led from Athens that could take supply to the Albanian front - or at least pretty close....

You've also shown the route the Germans took in their charge south through Greece. Again, you've decided that if the Germans could move south along these routes, that must mean the Greeks supplied 1st Army through them - despite what those total bozos in the US Army think.

So effectively because you think you've supplied the could, that means the Greeks did. But you don't know that. The US military seems to believe they didn't. But let's stay with the Greeks could for a minute. Could they? I've told you about the distance between Athens and Albania (as opposed to Salonika and Albania). It's clear - both in distance and terrain - why Salonika would be more likely to be used.

We are talking about the supply of 14 divisions of a Greek Army. That's a lot of supply on a daily basis. Have you confirmed the Greek motor transport situation in 1941? Have you confirmed what rail links there were then? Do you know what amount of transport would be required, and over how many days, to get the same amount of supply to the Albanian front from each source? You see, there are lots of elements to the could. You providing a couple of maps doesn't really wash does it?

Now, how about you stop playing around with silly maps and actually provide some evidence that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? Until you do, I'll stick with what the US army professionals have concluded. Thanks.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. ).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

quote:

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving.

quote:

The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater.

quote:

Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. ).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????

Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

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

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.

warspite1

....and you re-appear on the thread just to take us right back to where we started....

If, if, if..... and I've asked you to make a proper case, and you not only refuse to do so, but what little effort you have put in has been largely based on incorrect information, questionable - and in some cases frankly bizarre - assumptions, and a refusal to believe the professionals of the German army (though you believe them when it suits you).

Re the bit in bold, once again a complete lie that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. First request.

quote:

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain...

Supermen!

Reality: The supply cost of taking Spain will be directly proportionate to the size and quality of the Spanish Army. To review: Tiny and puny. The supply costs will be light because of this.

warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Second request.

My part in bold.

warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Third request.

I didn't say you called the "supermen". I said you were building them up into supermen. And that's exactly what the post I bolded was attempting to do.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????

Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I've told you exactly the source of the 800, I've told you the publication and the primary source - and you still say that. The reassessment following France 1940?? So you don't understand that May/June 1940 is before November 1940?

Of course its only some of the 800. Who said otherwise?? It's you that said all 800 would only be needed for Gibraltar.

So you don't believe any primary sources now? You are looking increasingly desperate in a bid to cover up for your lack of knowledge. Well done Lemay. Well done indeed.

Let's take it at it's face value: Clearly, the Germans thought they had sufficient shells and etc. for the Gibraltar operation. And, for sure, Gibraltar is worth it! The payback for taking it would be huge in the Desert War.

It's the conquest of Spain that is new. And that army remains tiny and low quality.

Actually, the Germans were running out of artillery shells, much like in 1914.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I've told you exactly the source of the 800, I've told you the publication and the primary source - and you still say that. The reassessment following France 1940?? So you don't understand that May/June 1940 is before November 1940?

Of course its only some of the 800. Who said otherwise?? It's you that said all 800 would only be needed for Gibraltar.

So you don't believe any primary sources now? You are looking increasingly desperate in a bid to cover up for your lack of knowledge. Well done Lemay. Well done indeed.

Let's take it at it's face value: Clearly, the Germans thought they had sufficient shells and etc. for the Gibraltar operation. And, for sure, Gibraltar is worth it! The payback for taking it would be huge in the Desert War.

It's the conquest of Spain that is new. And that army remains tiny and low quality.

Actually, the Germans were running out of artillery shells, much like in 1914.

This man is not "happy to take German primary source material at face value". Oh dear!

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But how can that sentence be taken out of context or mis-understood? Look at it this way:

A US military study confirms that supply for the Greek 1st Army was centred on the port of Salonika. What does that mean? Could that have been the sole port of supply?, the primary port? What? Well they go onto say that if Salonika was taken then that would cut off their supply. That would suggest that Salonika was either the sole supply port or the one that provided the vast majority of supply doesn't it?

Let's be honest here. I don't know. You don't know. So I've used this US military study as my supporting evidence. What do you do? Do you ask to see the military study? Have you shown the slightest interest in the study? No.

Okay, so why are you so keen to rubbish such a source without even seeing it yourself? Presumably you do that because you have evidence yourself that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? But you don't. You don't have any evidence from any military sources - whether Greek, British, German or Italian. You don't have any 3rd party sources either.

So what convinces you that the US military guys are total idiots who have no clue what they are putting their name to? Well, you have some maps from a WWII Atlas and from Wiki.... And that shows there was at least two roads that led from Athens that could take supply to the Albanian front - or at least pretty close....

You've also shown the route the Germans took in their charge south through Greece. Again, you've decided that if the Germans could move south along these routes, that must mean the Greeks supplied 1st Army through them - despite what those total bozos in the US Army think.

So effectively because you think you've supplied the could, that means the Greeks did. But you don't know that. The US military seems to believe they didn't. But let's stay with the Greeks could for a minute. Could they? I've told you about the distance between Athens and Albania (as opposed to Salonika and Albania). It's clear - both in distance and terrain - why Salonika would be more likely to be used.

We are talking about the supply of 14 divisions of a Greek Army. That's a lot of supply on a daily basis. Have you confirmed the Greek motor transport situation in 1941? Have you confirmed what rail links there were then? Do you know what amount of transport would be required, and over how many days, to get the same amount of supply to the Albanian front from each source? You see, there are lots of elements to the could. You providing a couple of maps doesn't really wash does it?

Now, how about you stop playing around with silly maps and actually provide some evidence that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? Until you do, I'll stick with what the US army professionals have concluded. Thanks.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. ).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Nice faux anger there Lemay. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Second Request

You're so desperate to justify your vile insult. Despicable.

Yes. The Italians and Japanese were Axis Allies - before they became BELLIGERENTS! Big difference between an Ally and a belligerent!

quote:

However, you did say:

quote:

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

There, remember? So instead of talking in riddles why not make clear what you did say?

Note the small 'a'.

quote:

First things first:

a) what did you mean exactly when you said that Vichy France was an Axis ally (post 967)?

The same judgement of them that the Allies made of them after the war!!! Collaborators!!!!

quote:

c) You've raised ally (small 'a') as being a thing. Where is there a distinction between capital A and small a?

Official vs. de facto.

warspite1

More faux anger -

quote:

and still you don't answer the question. How very.... typical. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Third Request

quote:

By the way, please show me where Ally vs ally is a thing. Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As I said, I've got no idea where this particular argument came from and to be honest, having read your 'clarification' comment above, its not something even worth giving a moment's consideration to. You think the PURPOSE of Vichy France was to keep Germans out of Vichy - and then there's some weird question about the German's agreeing to stay out of Vichy or some old cobblers.... I can't make head nor tail of it to be honest and I'm pretty sure it didn't come from me. If you can make clear what you are asking and what I've said to make you even ask that question of me then I'll take another look.

Re Vichy generally, erm.... as I've said to you previously, you really need to get yourself down to the library and dig out some books.

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy wasn't to create an enclave within France that they Germans stayed out of, then why would the Germans agree to such a condition!!!!!!!

quote:

My challenge to you to set out how you think a 'Vichy' Spain comes about remains current. Please answer fully. Who would propose it,

Franco.

quote:

and under what circumstances?

After conquest of Spain by the Germans.

quote:

What would it seek to achieve?

Restoration of Franco to control of Spain and a protected enclave within Spain that the Germans stay out of.

quote:

Why would both parties be happy with it? What would it look like?

Franco gets restored to power in Spain and Germany gets Gibraltar and a peaceful Spain (which was all they wanted).

warspite1

I'll respond to this later when I've stopped laughing.

Edit:
Started to respond (even though I said I wouldn't do your job for you) and then thought better of it. I've asked for a proper case to be made and you produced what? four lines and less than 50 words.....

As I said in a previous post, you actually seem to delight in debating in such a fashion. It doesn't do you any favours.

But fine, but I'm still not going to do your job for you. If you can't actually be bothered, then nor can I.

What you have high level 'outlined' is laughable. You haven't got a clue what Vichy was about, but despite that you think it would be great if the Spanish had one too and you come up with those four lines.

Try again - but this time how about you make some effort? Read about Vichy first, understand what that was about and then see if you can really apply this to Spain.

You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But how can that sentence be taken out of context or mis-understood? Look at it this way:

A US military study confirms that supply for the Greek 1st Army was centred on the port of Salonika. What does that mean? Could that have been the sole port of supply?, the primary port? What? Well they go onto say that if Salonika was taken then that would cut off their supply. That would suggest that Salonika was either the sole supply port or the one that provided the vast majority of supply doesn't it?

Let's be honest here. I don't know. You don't know. So I've used this US military study as my supporting evidence. What do you do? Do you ask to see the military study? Have you shown the slightest interest in the study? No.

Okay, so why are you so keen to rubbish such a source without even seeing it yourself? Presumably you do that because you have evidence yourself that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? But you don't. You don't have any evidence from any military sources - whether Greek, British, German or Italian. You don't have any 3rd party sources either.

So what convinces you that the US military guys are total idiots who have no clue what they are putting their name to? Well, you have some maps from a WWII Atlas and from Wiki.... And that shows there was at least two roads that led from Athens that could take supply to the Albanian front - or at least pretty close....

You've also shown the route the Germans took in their charge south through Greece. Again, you've decided that if the Germans could move south along these routes, that must mean the Greeks supplied 1st Army through them - despite what those total bozos in the US Army think.

So effectively because you think you've supplied the could, that means the Greeks did. But you don't know that. The US military seems to believe they didn't. But let's stay with the Greeks could for a minute. Could they? I've told you about the distance between Athens and Albania (as opposed to Salonika and Albania). It's clear - both in distance and terrain - why Salonika would be more likely to be used.

We are talking about the supply of 14 divisions of a Greek Army. That's a lot of supply on a daily basis. Have you confirmed the Greek motor transport situation in 1941? Have you confirmed what rail links there were then? Do you know what amount of transport would be required, and over how many days, to get the same amount of supply to the Albanian front from each source? You see, there are lots of elements to the could. You providing a couple of maps doesn't really wash does it?

Now, how about you stop playing around with silly maps and actually provide some evidence that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? Until you do, I'll stick with what the US army professionals have concluded. Thanks.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. ).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

warspite1

My goodness!!

What is wrong with you. Are you actually trying to be wrong on every point?

quote:

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving.

Why don't you stop spouting rubbish that betrays you are totally and utterly out of your depth and try reading some history? Try reading something, anything about the Greco-Italian war and you will understand how thoroughly absurd that comment is.

quote:

The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater.

Oh dear..... Please re-read that and come back when you've realised what a total load of rubbish you've spoken. If you can't then I'll point you in the right direction - but I'm a fair man and so will give you a chance.

quote:

Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. ).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

Do you even understand basic English????? Read my post again. There is a difference between Could and Did. Yes? When you've found out what the Greeks did then you can provide that evidence here. Until then I'll listen to the professionals in the US Army who have given their understand of what the Greeks Did during their study of the Balkan Campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More lies to hide your total lack of knowledge....

So we were talking about Spain at this point and indeed you said:

quote:

This is ridiculous. It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them.

Every urban area has marshalling yards where trains can be held while unloaded. Of course such locations would be behind front lines.

Which part of that comment was you not referring to the Spanish rail system being able to more than handle anything required by the Germans? Reprehensible behaviour on your part Lemay.

Did I really need to state that the Spanish lines would have to be repaired - just as they have to be in every military campaign?!?! And, even in your quote above, I still do not mention the Spanish rail system. The French rail system will get the supplies to the rail head at the border and then trucks can deliver the supplies the rest of the way.

warspite1

Thank-you for this post. If you ever try and suggest that you have the moral high ground in ANY debate I will have this to hand.

Lets be completely clear here. You said:

"I never mentioned the Spanish rail system".

I said that was untrue and that you did. To evidence this I provide a post from you that says:

"It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them".

And how do you respond to that?

"I still do not mention the Spanish rail system".

So in saying that a rail line can handle vast amount of supplies and that it can supply more than enough for the Spanish campaign, you would have us believe that you were not suggesting that the Spanish rail system could supply the Germans with all it needed???? But that was the whole point of you providing that irrelevant Wiki article on US railroads in the 21st Century - because you were seeking to prove that the Germans could use the Spanish rail network.

I am surprised you allowed yourself to type this response out. Not your finest hour Lemay. Pretty shocking to be honest - along with the post about the Axis allies, you've really shown your level here. You are so desperate to be right over every single point, that you've resorted to this....

The line to the Spanish border is a single line. I was referring to that - and, obviously, to any sections of Spanish rail that were repaired to the European standard. Again, I did NOT mention the Spanish rail system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????

Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????

Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?

warspite1

Why do you have to be so black and white to the point of absurdity????

Why would ALL Spanish roads go through mountains? Please show me where I so much as suggested such a load of nonsense?

Edit: Sorry this seems to be a response to RangerJoe but had some of my posts. My comment is in response to your last comment only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????

Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?

warspite1

Why do you have to be so black and white to the point of absurdity????

Why would ALL Spanish roads go through mountains? Please show me where I so much as suggested such a load of nonsense?

Edit: Sorry this seems to be a response to RangerJoe but had some of my posts. My comment is in response to your last comment only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Your 'study' insists that the German supply paths must go through the mountains. So, there must be no roads around those mountains. So, it's saying the Spanish are idiots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I've told you exactly the source of the 800, I've told you the publication and the primary source - and you still say that. The reassessment following France 1940?? So you don't understand that May/June 1940 is before November 1940?

Of course its only some of the 800. Who said otherwise?? It's you that said all 800 would only be needed for Gibraltar.

So you don't believe any primary sources now? You are looking increasingly desperate in a bid to cover up for your lack of knowledge. Well done Lemay. Well done indeed.

Let's take it at it's face value: Clearly, the Germans thought they had sufficient shells and etc. for the Gibraltar operation. And, for sure, Gibraltar is worth it! The payback for taking it would be huge in the Desert War.

It's the conquest of Spain that is new. And that army remains tiny and low quality.

Actually, the Germans were running out of artillery shells, much like in 1914.

This man is not "happy to take German primary source material at face value". Oh dear!

warspite1

Well a shell shortage never came up in the German Military Strategy and Spain, so you can take that up with RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'm not sure why you keep posting this picture? You realize that the bridge at Patras was only built in 2004, correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio%E2%80%93Antirrio_Bridge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Your 'study' insists that the German supply paths must go through the mountains. So, there must be no roads around those mountains. So, it's saying the Spanish are idiots.

Yes, perhaps. Or perhaps--wait for it--the only way to get from Point A to Point B is through mountains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Check the map that goes with that one. Somehow, the Germans took that very route in 1941!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

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.

warspite1

....and you re-appear on the thread just to take us right back to where we started....

If, if, if..... and I've asked you to make a proper case, and you not only refuse to do so, but what little effort you have put in has been largely based on incorrect information, questionable - and in some cases frankly bizarre - assumptions, and a refusal to believe the professionals of the German army (though you believe them when it suits you).

Re the bit in bold, once again a complete lie that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. First request.

quote:

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain...

Supermen!

Reality: The supply cost of taking Spain will be directly proportionate to the size and quality of the Spanish Army. To review: Tiny and puny. The supply costs will be light because of this.

warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Second request.

My part in bold.

warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Third request.

I didn't say you called the "supermen". I said you were building them up into supermen. And that's exactly what the post I bolded was attempting to do.

warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

Please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. Fourth request.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Check the map that goes with that one. Somehow, the Germans took that very route in 1941!!

Yes, there was a ferry there before the bridge, so a one-time crossing would have been feasible. Are you suggesting that it is as easy to run supply operations over ferry as over a bridge?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????

Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?

Some of them did, the roads went through tunnels. It happens all over the world.

So now you are insulting all Spaniards? Or just all civil engineers? Or just the civil engineers who know that road grades above 7% are obstacles? Not to mention sharp curves being obstacles?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Apparently it was for the Germans!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Nice faux anger there Lemay. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Second Request

You're so desperate to justify your vile insult. Despicable.

Yes. The Italians and Japanese were Axis Allies - before they became BELLIGERENTS! Big difference between an Ally and a belligerent!

quote:

However, you did say:

quote:

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

There, remember? So instead of talking in riddles why not make clear what you did say?

Note the small 'a'.

quote:

First things first:

a) what did you mean exactly when you said that Vichy France was an Axis ally (post 967)?

The same judgement of them that the Allies made of them after the war!!! Collaborators!!!!

quote:

c) You've raised ally (small 'a') as being a thing. Where is there a distinction between capital A and small a?

Official vs. de facto.

warspite1

More faux anger -

Righteous anger. Maybe you'd like to get a few more insults out of your system.

quote:

and still you don't answer the question. How very.... typical. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Third Request

They were Allies (members of the Axis alliance) prior to becoming belligerents. Once they joined WWII, then they became belligerents.

quote:

By the way, please show me where Ally vs ally is a thing. Thanks

Official vs. de facto. Capitol 'A' - member of the Axis Alliance. Lower-case 'a', de facto collaborator.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As I said, I've got no idea where this particular argument came from and to be honest, having read your 'clarification' comment above, its not something even worth giving a moment's consideration to. You think the PURPOSE of Vichy France was to keep Germans out of Vichy - and then there's some weird question about the German's agreeing to stay out of Vichy or some old cobblers.... I can't make head nor tail of it to be honest and I'm pretty sure it didn't come from me. If you can make clear what you are asking and what I've said to make you even ask that question of me then I'll take another look.

Re Vichy generally, erm.... as I've said to you previously, you really need to get yourself down to the library and dig out some books.

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy wasn't to create an enclave within France that they Germans stayed out of, then why would the Germans agree to such a condition!!!!!!!

quote:

My challenge to you to set out how you think a 'Vichy' Spain comes about remains current. Please answer fully. Who would propose it,

Franco.

quote:

and under what circumstances?

After conquest of Spain by the Germans.

quote:

What would it seek to achieve?

Restoration of Franco to control of Spain and a protected enclave within Spain that the Germans stay out of.

quote:

Why would both parties be happy with it? What would it look like?

Franco gets restored to power in Spain and Germany gets Gibraltar and a peaceful Spain (which was all they wanted).

warspite1

I'll respond to this later when I've stopped laughing.

Edit:
Started to respond (even though I said I wouldn't do your job for you) and then thought better of it. I've asked for a proper case to be made and you produced what? four lines and less than 50 words.....

As I said in a previous post, you actually seem to delight in debating in such a fashion. It doesn't do you any favours.

But fine, but I'm still not going to do your job for you. If you can't actually be bothered, then nor can I.

What you have high level 'outlined' is laughable. You haven't got a clue what Vichy was about, but despite that you think it would be great if the Spanish had one too and you come up with those four lines.

Try again - but this time how about you make some effort? Read about Vichy first, understand what that was about and then see if you can really apply this to Spain.

You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More lies to hide your total lack of knowledge....

So we were talking about Spain at this point and indeed you said:

quote:

This is ridiculous. It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them.

Every urban area has marshalling yards where trains can be held while unloaded. Of course such locations would be behind front lines.

Which part of that comment was you not referring to the Spanish rail system being able to more than handle anything required by the Germans? Reprehensible behaviour on your part Lemay.

Did I really need to state that the Spanish lines would have to be repaired - just as they have to be in every military campaign?!?! And, even in your quote above, I still do not mention the Spanish rail system. The French rail system will get the supplies to the rail head at the border and then trucks can deliver the supplies the rest of the way.

warspite1

Thank-you for this post. If you ever try and suggest that you have the moral high ground in ANY debate I will have this to hand.

Lets be completely clear here. You said:

"I never mentioned the Spanish rail system".

I said that was untrue and that you did. To evidence this I provide a post from you that says:

"It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them".

And how do you respond to that?

"I still do not mention the Spanish rail system".

So in saying that a rail line can handle vast amount of supplies and that it can supply more than enough for the Spanish campaign, you would have us believe that you were not suggesting that the Spanish rail system could supply the Germans with all it needed???? But that was the whole point of you providing that irrelevant Wiki article on US railroads in the 21st Century - because you were seeking to prove that the Germans could use the Spanish rail network.

I am surprised you allowed yourself to type this response out. Not your finest hour Lemay. Pretty shocking to be honest - along with the post about the Axis allies, you've really shown your level here. You are so desperate to be right over every single point, that you've resorted to this....

The line to the Spanish border is a single line. I was referring to that - and, obviously, to any sections of Spanish rail that were repaired to the European standard. Again, I did NOT mention the Spanish rail system.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But how can that sentence be taken out of context or mis-understood? Look at it this way:

A US military study confirms that supply for the Greek 1st Army was centred on the port of Salonika. What does that mean? Could that have been the sole port of supply?, the primary port? What? Well they go onto say that if Salonika was taken then that would cut off their supply. That would suggest that Salonika was either the sole supply port or the one that provided the vast majority of supply doesn't it?

Let's be honest here. I don't know. You don't know. So I've used this US military study as my supporting evidence. What do you do? Do you ask to see the military study? Have you shown the slightest interest in the study? No.

Okay, so why are you so keen to rubbish such a source without even seeing it yourself? Presumably you do that because you have evidence yourself that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? But you don't. You don't have any evidence from any military sources - whether Greek, British, German or Italian. You don't have any 3rd party sources either.

So what convinces you that the US military guys are total idiots who have no clue what they are putting their name to? Well, you have some maps from a WWII Atlas and from Wiki.... And that shows there was at least two roads that led from Athens that could take supply to the Albanian front - or at least pretty close....

You've also shown the route the Germans took in their charge south through Greece. Again, you've decided that if the Germans could move south along these routes, that must mean the Greeks supplied 1st Army through them - despite what those total bozos in the US Army think.

So effectively because you think you've supplied the could, that means the Greeks did. But you don't know that. The US military seems to believe they didn't. But let's stay with the Greeks could for a minute. Could they? I've told you about the distance between Athens and Albania (as opposed to Salonika and Albania). It's clear - both in distance and terrain - why Salonika would be more likely to be used.

We are talking about the supply of 14 divisions of a Greek Army. That's a lot of supply on a daily basis. Have you confirmed the Greek motor transport situation in 1941? Have you confirmed what rail links there were then? Do you know what amount of transport would be required, and over how many days, to get the same amount of supply to the Albanian front from each source? You see, there are lots of elements to the could. You providing a couple of maps doesn't really wash does it?

Now, how about you stop playing around with silly maps and actually provide some evidence that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? Until you do, I'll stick with what the US army professionals have concluded. Thanks.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. ).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

warspite1

My goodness!!

What is wrong with you. Are you actually trying to be wrong on every point?

quote:

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving.

Why don't you stop spouting rubbish that betrays you are totally and utterly out of your depth and try reading some history? Try reading something, anything about the Greco-Italian war and you will understand how thoroughly absurd that comment is.

quote:

The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater.

Oh dear..... Please re-read that and come back when you've realised what a total load of rubbish you've spoken. If you can't then I'll point you in the right direction - but I'm a fair man and so will give you a chance.

quote:

Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. ).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

Do you even understand basic English????? Read my post again. There is a difference between Could and Did. Yes? When you've found out what the Greeks did then you can provide that evidence here. Until then I'll listen to the professionals in the US Army who have given their understand of what the Greeks Did during their study of the Balkan Campaign.

And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Check the map that goes with that one. Somehow, the Germans took that very route in 1941!!

Yes, there was a ferry there before the bridge, so a one-time crossing would have been feasible. Are you suggesting that it is as easy to run supply operations over ferry as over a bridge?

Apparently it was for the Germans!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????

Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?

Some of them did, the roads went through tunnels. It happens all over the world.

So now you are insulting all Spaniards? Or just all civil engineers? Or just the civil engineers who know that road grades above 7% are obstacles? Not to mention sharp curves being obstacles?

No. I'm insulting his stupid study that he insists on holding up as gospel.