|
Lucky1 -> RE: Uncommon Valor 2.1 (1/15/2008 6:51:26 AM)
|
There was an etc. in my first comment which was meant to suggest other objectives than simply taking Cairo. Of course, extra transports are not required to take Cairo. In theory, transports are not required at all. Italy could move troops and supply to Africa using bombers instead of transports. But this would be slow and less effective. As you are aware, if Germany is taking Cairo only to seal the East Med, it is missing a few opportunites that are present prior to war with Russia (extra resources, ability to pressure India or Africa). If one doesn't build transports, it will take very long to get supplies to the resources (Cairo, Iraq) to repair them, to retreive (or augment) your forces and, if you are lucky, to link to horn of Africa. Would one not (correct me if I am wrong) also need the extra transports to link to the resources in Iraq / Cairo (or does it simply work by touching a piece of contiguous land - grateful if you could clarify)?
Too, without transports, threatening India or Africa (even if only bluster) is out of the question. I would suspect that the no. 1 reason for WA to leave fleet in West Med (unless obvious that Cairo will fall), is to prevent Germany the benefits presented by sea transport. This is why Crete is of some relevance (op-fire). But, you know this already, don't you [:)]....
Beyond the above points, when compared to a Mediterranean cruise, caravan travel across the desert is slow, dirty and uncivilized.
|
|
|
|
