RE: The Italian Spear (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> The War Room



Message

warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/2/2015 7:50:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I have always found this a somewhat strange campaign, if you look at it from a political point of view.

Here we have Vichy French soldiers fighting against the "rebel Free French" and what happened in Metropolitan Vichy France? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. No propaganda, no reaction, no diplomacy, nothing...

It shows really how disinterested the Germans were, concerning the war in the Med. They didn't even see the opportunity this gave them...
warspite1

Let's face it, Vichy was 'somewhat strange' wasn't it? Interesting to read about - and the position the leaders were in and the way they tried to get the best deal from Germany etc. Fascinating, treacherous?, sensible? the right decision, the wrong decision, ultimately just sadly unfortunate.... so many emotions, so many thoughts go through the mind just thinking about it.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/5/2015 2:04:19 AM)

Axis time table: I see no reason why Germany can not get what it needs to the Spanish border by July 30 (probably much sooner). Axis send demands and offers to Franco with 24 hour deadline. Axis do not hear from Franco, and invasion begins at dawn August 1.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/9/2015 6:21:41 AM)

The armistice formalities have been completed on the 25th June. Hitler calls his senior generals to Munich for a pow wow. Mussolini, Ciano and Italian top brass have also been invited, and are to arrive the following day.

Mussolini [In a bad mood after not receiving Tunisia, Corsica and Nice]: I'm fed up being running here, there and everywhere just because the German leader wishes it so.

Ciano: I wonder what plans the Nazi's have in store now? I did warn you not to join the war Il Duce.

Mussolini: Shut it Ciano, I'm off to see Clara.



brian brian -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/9/2015 2:27:02 PM)

So...did Franco win WWII? One could say that he was the only Fascist leader to survive the conflict.

I've never looked - what happens to Italian victory totals if they never declare war on a Major Power? That is an option in the game, though one never taken by a player. Probably at the end the western Allies would be forced to attack Italy to keep them from having a big VP differential from a probably negative number bid.

But really, there was no way, in history, that Italy would have ever gone to war with Spain, after spending that much blood & treasure on regime change there. And Italy's desires from a peace settlement with France illustrate (to me) the Euro-Axis strategic thinking of the war - they never expected to completely conquer France and possibly take everything. It is only re-playing the war later that we can see the possibilities created by the (temporary) German advantage in military capabilities.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/9/2015 5:25:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

But really, there was no way, in history, that Italy would have ever gone to war with Spain, after spending that much blood & treasure on regime change there. And Italy's desires from a peace settlement with France illustrate (to me) the Euro-Axis strategic thinking of the war - they never expected to completely conquer France and possibly take everything. It is only re-playing the war later that we can see the possibilities created by the (temporary) German advantage in military capabilities.
warspite1

This is what this 'meeting' seeks to explore. The more I read on the subject the more impossible the proposed German action becomes.

I agree entirely re Italy and Spain. It's a hornet's nest - and I just cannot see Hitler being prepared to open it. If he tried to take action outside of that he actually did, he's going to cheese someone off.



Orm -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/9/2015 5:50:27 PM)

I agree that a German attack on Spain during '40 is unlikely.

But if Germany would have decided that an attack on USSR was to be delayed until the war with UK is resolved then there would have been other options than to attack Spain. Maybe Spain could have been convinced next year or so?

With no invasion of UK and no attack on USSR there are several options for Germany. Here are three of the options.

1) A second phony war.
2) Sending more forces to the Mediterranean and after Crete they could focus on Malta and the Eastern portion of the Mediterranean. Would there have been any difference if the major portion of the German air forces had been located in this theatre?
3) Gearing for a second battle of Britain during '41 and '42 combined with a higher prioritized battle of that Atlantic.



Klydon -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/9/2015 6:27:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Klydon: I agree with everything you wrote. Thanks for the info, and what is the name of the book?



Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. "The German Generals Speak" by Liddel-Hart is the book. Apparently, von Thoma was sent in Nov of 1940 to Africa on a visit. He reported the Italian generals there wanted no German troops in Africa period because they wanted the glory of the victory themselves. Benito wanted German help, but didn't want the Germans running the show.

von Thoma basically reported that it was possible to support around 4 armored divisions and no more in terms of logistics, etc in Africa because of shipping/port capacity, etc. His recommendation was if there was a limit like that, then the best possible troops should be used, which meant Germans replacing Italians and there would be no Italian fighting troops in theater. (von Thoma served in Spain as well and saw Italian forces "in action" there and had a pretty low opinion of them in terms of military skill, etc).



brian brian -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 1:41:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I agree that a German attack on Spain during '40 is unlikely.

But if Germany would have decided that an attack on USSR was to be delayed until the war with UK is resolved then there would have been other options than to attack Spain. Maybe Spain could have been convinced next year or so?

With no invasion of UK and no attack on USSR there are several options for Germany. Here are three of the options.

1) A second phony war.
2) Sending more forces to the Mediterranean and after Crete they could focus on Malta and the Eastern portion of the Mediterranean. Would there have been any difference if the major portion of the German air forces had been located in this theatre?
3) Gearing for a second battle of Britain during '41 and '42 combined with a higher prioritized battle of that Atlantic.


I think there would be a 4th option - simply pay Franco his price. It was high, but the reward would be high as well - likely disconnecting the UK from all of the Commonwealth save Canada, as well as possibly improving the German economy (including the war economy for crucial military technology supplies) via access to global markets. Concentrating the Euro-Axis navies in Gibraltar / Lisbon (Portugal would probably join up in such a scenario) would be a serious challenge even for the might of the Royal Navy. If German war aims were analyzed clearly by the historical leaders, this could have been the conclusion they reached if Barbarossa was to be delayed until 1942.

Perhaps no Winter War decision on the part of Stalin might not have revealed to Hitler the post-Purge deficiencies of the Red Army, to supply a counter-factual possibility that could have influenced the German thinking to try this. I can't see any other way it could happen however - Hitler's dreams of expanding Germany to the east started in the 1920s.

I have always thought that if the Ukraine option is a rule in the game, there should be a similar one for the Germans to simply purchase Franco's active allegiance, which I think was a more realistic possibility than an Axis DoW on Spain. But perhaps that would be a little unbalancing in the game. ? If the Germans can take Gibraltar on time to launch Barbarossa on the historical turn, they are in a very, very strong position to win a game of World in Flames.

And there would be a 5th option - All of the Above, with Orm's cogent selections there.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 4:19:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I agree that a German attack on Spain during '40 is unlikely.

But if Germany would have decided that an attack on USSR was to be delayed until the war with UK is resolved then there would have been other options than to attack Spain. Maybe Spain could have been convinced next year or so?

With no invasion of UK and no attack on USSR there are several options for Germany. Here are three of the options.

1) A second phony war.
2) Sending more forces to the Mediterranean and after Crete they could focus on Malta and the Eastern portion of the Mediterranean. Would there have been any difference if the major portion of the German air forces had been located in this theatre?
3) Gearing for a second battle of Britain during '41 and '42 combined with a higher prioritized battle of that Atlantic.


I think there would be a 4th option - simply pay Franco his price.

warspite1

How does Germany do that? So where do the military supplies, the oil and the food come from? Are you suggesting that Vichy is dissolved a few months after it was formed?




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 7:01:38 AM)

I agree that if we are playing out this scenario with Hitler in charge, then its not worth even thinking about because the same thing will happen as happened in real life. What I am trying to do here, and maybe others are not, is trying to figure out a realistic time line based on realistic move/counter move and actual forces available. Using logic and common sense...wargaming both sides. Although you could simply do this in a WiF game, I don't think it would play out realistically since WiF games tend to go in some crazy ways.

As for the Italians, I think I admitted that they were fairly useless, not worth getting involved in any attack into Spain. They did have some interesting tools that could be utilized by Germany to some good effect elsewhere.

I also mentioned that for this discussion we say Franco ignores Germany and Spain is invaded. I do however think its interesting to debate Franco, and I do think a strong-willed German leader vis-à-vis Gibraltar/Spain/Franco could have gotten Franco to do what Germany needed him to do. As for Warspite's questions, I think food would have been fairly easy with all the good farm land the Germans are now in possession of. Military supplies and oil can be promised after Gibraltar is taken, its a fate-a-compli after that anyway. As for Vichey...as I wrote prior, Spain is worth far more than Vichy. Once Gibraltar is taken, I suspect north Africa and Syria are ripe.

Assuming Hitler is out of the picture, would a logical and common sense German leader do any of 1-3 of Orm's suggestions? I assume his suggestions assume Hitler is still in charge?



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 10:07:53 AM)

quote:

I think food would have been fairly easy


quote:

Military supplies and oil can be promised after Gibraltar is taken


quote:

Spain is worth far more than Vichy


The Spanish economy was totally done in 1939. The Spanish were kept fed and provided with fuel thanks to trade with the UK during the war.

Franco was clear. The Spanish demand was upfront - ahead of any military action:

- 400,000 tons of oil
- 500,000 tons of coal
- 200,000 tons of wheat
- 100,000 tons of cotton
and a very, very long list of other items. And that's without the military equipment needed.... oh and the small matter of French Morocco AND northwest Algeria.

Thereafter, the Spanish would need constant support from Germany. Franco was clearly not a stupid man. He was not going to sell Spain down river for promises. Unlike the Italians, Germany had played hard-ball over support in the Civil War, and extracted more than their pound of flesh in return for help.

Hitler allowed Vichy because he didn't want to have the burden of administering such a large area. Any involvement in Spain is going to require a lot of troops - not least in Morocco to deal with any Allied incursion there and any French backlash.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 11:54:27 AM)

Some thoughts.

1. Germany invades Spain. In line with Klydon, I just cannot see this as a possibility to the point that, to my mind, it is simply not worth thinking about. It was bad enough trying to get the German public (not to mention the party faithful) and other countries, sympathetic to Germany, to accept the Nazi-Soviet Pact, but a declaration of war against a right-wing/Fascist country that they had fought alongside just the previous year? Another consideration - although nowhere as important - is that one of the reasons for allowing Vichy was to stop the Germans from having to administer such a large country; well Spain is little different in size – and parts of it are a good deal less hospitable. A considerable number of German troops would be required not only to conquer Spain but to garrison it afterwards - not to mention Spanish Morocco.

In addition to the problems of Nazi Germany attacking Spain, as brian brian said, there is no way realistically that Mussolini – who invested far more than Germany into installing Franco, and with whom, as a southern European nation, the Italians had far more in common with – could survive such a volte-face; particularly so as it would be clear that Italy are simply doing Germany’s bidding.

So for me that is out.

2. So we are back to the feasibility – or otherwise - of Germany getting Spain into the war. So how could that play out? Historically:

1940
3rd June. It is clear that the French are defeated. Franco writes personally to Hitler in gushing terms – but also bemoaning the fact that after 3-years of Civil War, the country is screwed (or words to that effect). He follows this up by sending the head of the Spanish General Staff to meet Hitler in Belgium to follow up the point – oh and to make clear that the Spanish want French Morocco. He also mentions Spanish plans to take Gibraltar.

Hitler has other things on his mind – the final defeat of France, the negotiation (or imposition) of an armistice upon France. At this stage he hasn’t got round to thinking ‘what the hell do we do now?’

16th July. With France now tidied up, Hitler puts out a final ‘offer of peace’ in some turgid speech or other zzzzzzz. Churchill is not interested and Hitler organises a meeting with his military top brass for the 31st July. During that month a German military mission is sent to Spain and the news that comes back is not great…. the Spanish plans for attacking Gibraltar are woeful. Not only that – but the Spanish insist that it is they that will undertake the operation, with Luftwaffe support provided only if the Royal Navy make their presence felt.

Early August. The Spanish present the full shopping list of requirements to Hitler – in return for which, they will join the war. These include:
- Gibraltar, French Morocco, Northwest Algeria, additional territory in Central Africa
- Military supplies by the bucketload. Equipment for the Spanish army to be supplied by the Germans and Italians!

- 400,000 tons of oil
- 500,000 tons of coal
- 200,000 tons of wheat
- 100,000 tons of cotton

and a very, very long list of other items. And of course this is just the start.

13th August. Realising that Britain needs to be taken out, Hitler orders the air war over the UK to destroy the RAF and so make conditions possible for Operation Sealion.

Meanwhile on the 27th August the Germans draw up a treaty to allow the Spanish to enter the war. To say this was unacceptable to the Spanish would be an understatement. Essentially the Spanish would have to wait for territorial questions to be resolved in line with an overall settlement with France, there would be no territorial gain in Central Africa, military and economic aid would be provided (subject to further discussion), Germany would be given bases in one of the Canary Islands, and in Morocco etc etc……

The Spanish and Germans – specifically the Foreign Ministers Serrano and Ribbentrop – spent a good dealing of time the following month building up a hate/hate relationship and generally talking past each other over what each side wanted/was offering. Despite this, during the meeting at Hendaye on the 16th October, both sides appeared to believe that a mutually agreeable outcome was possible….

Unsurprisingly that proves not to be the case.

So. If Hitler is going to agree to Franco’s demands (their counter-'offer' is of course withdrawn) we need to:

a) Work out what France do. I can see no other option than the Vichy territories turning Free French and the fleet trying to escape Toulon.
b) Understand what the effect is on the German economy. How much oil – in barrels – is being asked for? What is the German output of wheat and coal per annum?
c) Know what forces the French have in Algeria and Morocco to counter any Spanish / German moves.
d) Know what is available in Tunisia to threaten Libya?
e) Know what can forces in Senegal and elsewhere do to reinforce French Morocco.
f) Know what immediate assistance can the British provide?
g) Understand the extent to which the British can reinforce Gibraltar - at least initially to delay the enemy?



brian brian -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 2:33:22 PM)

I once read a counter-factual imagination of WWII which had Hitler serve in the Navy during The Great War, giving him a determination to finally beat the British in The Next One. So Plan Z is not only approved, but accelerated, and so on.

I guess what I've always wanted to consider is with the well-known Spanish shopping list, for the individual items, what % of the German supply available is being requested? Would Germany have had to launch some eastward expansion first, just to meet the Spanish requests? If the Germans considered it more seriously, probably the balance paid would have been lower after negotiations, but clearly not that much lower.

So with one optional rule you can set up the Ukraine for the cost of 2 Offensive Chits and reducing the Waffen-SS (i.e. a great question of history - what if Germany in WWII operated like a 19th century power instead of like a 12th century power via Nazi ideology - always a bit of dangerous territory for a game to explore - "let's just pretend the Nazis were nice"). What would a rule to purchase Spain's allegiance be like (perhaps slightly more of a real possibility than "nice Nazis")? 2 O-Chits + X amount of BPs? How high do you set X? And plus nibblings from the French Empire...

I mean in history there were 3 inter-twined reasons this never happened - Hitler was obsessed with the East, in part because of reason #2 - an inability to conceive of the idea of France being so thoroughly beaten that a serious Mediterranean Option was even possible? This is part of why the Germans paying Franco X (reason #3) never got very high on any German agenda.

...Warspite includes a great point - Franco probably couldn't be appeased while Vichy existed. The Vichy agreement gave Germany an easy answer to a somewhat un-foreseen question - what did Hitler really want out of a war with France? On the other side of the coin, it is sometimes hard for people today to understand what the French got out of that railroad car - keeping their Empire. The game handles this well enough already, via the Axis option to decide between a Vichy settlement or Incomplete Conquest of France. So my idea for a purchase-Spain optional would probably have to start with the sentence "If France is incompletely conquered and Vichy has not been installed..."


Overall the more I think of an idea allowing the Axis player to decide to bring Spain in on their side is just too unbalancing, though just as unlikely as the historical Nazis picking the Ukraine option.

I do think World in Flames as it stands could use two small tweaks to existing rules related to these lines of discussion - the chance for Partisan activity in Spain should be more like 60~70 % per turn and be the highest in the game (currently 40% with Yugoslavia at 50%) as there were scores of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in the country with politically motivated infantry combat experience, including guerrilla tactics. Also I think if metropolitan France is incompletely conquered, the French Major Power should immediately receive all of the French City Based Volunteer units on to the production spiral as if Free France had been created.




And re: the original question of this thread - what were Mussolini's historical war aims? I think he would have had more of a 19th century mindset in this regard - start a war, win some battles, receive a province from the enemy, exploit that province, get rich, live happily ever after. Taking Egypt and connecting the Italian possessions in Africa probably would have satisfied him thorough the 40s, until the American development of the Saudi oilfields started to show everyone the light of where the money was to be made in the 20th century.



brian brian -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 2:46:03 PM)

And forgot - meanwhile during all this Germany thinking West & South activity, there is another great actor on the European stage we haven't considered - Stalin. I think the game handles this fairly well with the Pact rules, except in history, few understood the values on the counters. A Tank Army was a Tank Army and a bomber wing was a potent idea irrespective of your fighter pilots' actual combat experience. So Russian players of the game are probably going to be reluctant to attack Germany in 1941 (though breaking the economic Pact without a DOW if the Germans slip up on the garrison is a very smart move if Germany is enjoying the sunny south too much). But historical Stalin might well have pulled the trigger in 1941 in this case.

And in the game, the cost of purchasing Spain + sufficient force in Poland to deter Stalin should then leave Germany with very little to campaign in the Mediterranean with, perhaps mostly air-power while Italy supplies the mostly ineffective boots on the ground.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 3:19:53 PM)

quote:

Overall the more I think of an idea allowing the Axis player to decide to bring Spain in on their side is just too unbalancing…..


The reason being is that, unlike in real life, there is no cost to the German economy for the Spanish coming in. Your idea that there would be a BP cost (through offensive chits) is a good one - but given the state the country was in, would probably need an on going cost too.

quote:

It is sometimes hard for people today to understand what the French got out of that railroad car - keeping their Empire.


I think its pretty obvious. I recommend you read Vichy France – Old Guard and New Order (Paxton). I find it a great shame on forums like this that our French friends don’t provide their views on Vichy. That would be extremely interesting and a valuable addition to the debate.

quote:

I once read a counter-factual imagination of WWII which had Hitler serve in the Navy during The Great War, giving him a determination to finally beat the British in The Next One. So Plan Z is not only approved, but accelerated, and so on.


Two things: a) The Kaiser tried that…. b) Germany is a land power. Plan Z was halted because it was totally impossible. Germany did not have the yards, the steel and the manpower. Of course they could have made it possible by using the steel, manpower and factories/plant set aside to build the army and air force…. but then that would be a bit of a crap move for a land power…. The French would have loved them to do it.

quote:

I guess what I've always wanted to consider is with the well-known Spanish shopping list, for the individual items, what % of the German supply available is being requested?


That was the question I asked at the end. From some high level research since, it seems the original ask would have been manageable. The problem of course is that Germany suffered rationing as it was – and now the Germans have to give up food on an on-going basis. Germany could not build enough tanks and aircraft and armoured vehicles as it was – and now they are going to have to equip the Spanish as well as help out their Italian ‘friends’. Germany did not have enough manpower for the Eastern Front, and now the Germans are going to have to garrison Spain and Spanish Morocco. The point is – and the Germans realised this – taking Spain into the fold was not a great move as instead of adding to their power, they would actually be a drain on resources. The one potential counter to that is Gibraltar - but that would still need Hitler to realise that a change in building priorities was required - and the USSR would have to wait. Gibraltar on its own - even with Malta, achieves nothing.

quote:

…there is another great actor on the European stage we haven't considered - Stalin.


Stalin was happy to sign the Nazi-Soviet pact because he was certain that the Germans would exhaust themselves fighting the Western Powers. Further German entanglements elsewhere would suit him fine. So long as Germany don’t defeat the Western Powers…….



Orm -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 4:01:21 PM)

quote:

Stalin was happy to sign the Nazi-Soviet pact because he was certain that the Germans would exhaust themselves fighting the Western Powers. Further German entanglements elsewhere would suit him fine. So long as Germany don’t defeat the Western Powers…….

I am guessing that Stalin was counting on US to stop Germany from winning in the West. Eventually...

----

How about a cost of three offensive chits in order to have Spain join Axis. It could then join as a "minor" ally. If Axis capture Gibraltar and Morocco then there would be an option to turn them over to Spain in order to upgrade Spain to a "normal" ally.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 4:13:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Stalin was happy to sign the Nazi-Soviet pact because he was certain that the Germans would exhaust themselves fighting the Western Powers. Further German entanglements elsewhere would suit him fine. So long as Germany don’t defeat the Western Powers…….

I am guessing that Stalin was counting on US to stop Germany from winning in the West. Eventually...

warspite1

Like just about everybody in the world at the time (including the German generals) Stalin thought WWII would be WWI mk2 and it would see a long drawn out slog between the western powers and the fascists that would weaken both and mean the USSR were safe from any menace (and who knows? maybe do a little menacing themselves? [;)]).

When Germany steam-rollered France Stalin must have been mighty nervous - so nervous he decided to take the Nazi-Soviet pact seriously and stopped mucking about with supplies he was due to deliver.

Yes, I expect he was as relieved as Churchill when the US entered the war.



Klydon -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 4:13:38 PM)

In history, a 42 Barbarossa would have likely been a disaster for the Germans. While it may not be reflected as well in MWiF terms, the idea that Russia would have had another year to complete reorganizing their army AND also had a full year of production on the T34 and KV1 tanks means the Germans would have potentially run into a buzz saw. The Germans had no clue about the T34 and/or the KV1 and would have had no reason to make radical changes to their existing tanks let alone initiate the design for the Panther in response to the T34. German tank production was low during this period of time as well and likely would not have increased all that much.

By some German accounts, the splitting of the armored divisions from 10 to 20 at the end of the French campaign was a mistake. There simply wasn't the same amount of maneuvering strength in terms of tanks. Even if they had no wastage from any other campaign, they still would not have been able to bring the 20 divisions up to the standards of their 10 that invaded France. Also keep in mind that 1/4 of the German tank strength was the Czech tanks, which were totally useless in the face of T34 and KV1 tanks.

The point that Russia likely would not have remained idle while the Germans when on other adventures is a good one. There are conflicting reports that Stalin intended to invade mid summer of 1941, regardless of the state of the Red Army. (The state of the army was underestimated by Stalin anyway).

If the Germans were going to do something with Russia, the time was 1941. That they didn't win doesn't mean they could not have won if they had not mishandled the start of the campaign and also deviated (Hitler's interference) from the plan. Of course, there are a lot of different opinions on what would have happen had the Germans managed to capture both Leningrad and Moscow by the close of 1941. Some insist the Russians would have fought on while others believe that Stalin would have sought a political solution. (There are indications Stalin was going to do this in 1941 and early 1942, but the Germans were too greedy in what they wanted and perhaps Stalin was a bit too optimistic on what he could get).



brian brian -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 4:28:43 PM)

I read Paxton some 27 or 28 years ago though I still have a copy. I enjoyed it but my memory of it is too much consideration of American relations with Vichy, which seemed to have little relevance to anything, though perhaps that is a memory from the course I was taking and not from that particular volume. I will re-read it the next time I can unpack my library.

Of course what the French received in Compiègne was also an answer to an unforeseen question - now what? They could hardly have considered in advance the idea that Germany had moved so far ahead of them in military technology and tactics. So they too came out of the train car with some positives, considering some alternative possibilities.


For some sort of purchase-Spain rule, which I believe has been proposed in the past and quickly becomes a possible and obvious line of play in Days of Decision or Politics in Flames (with Turkey as well, and does anyone remember the "Coup Cell" rules?); this was also an obvious 'possible history' rule proposed for Third Reich by Alan Emrich - I just modeled my idea on the Ukraine rule. A cost in Offensive Chits (already produced) represents re-arming the Spanish but there would have to be a separate economic cost. Perhaps an upfront cost in Oil points and then an on-going cost in oil and other resources, i.e. payments per turn for some period of turns or something. But ultimately freeing a German player from Hitler's blind spots is still a probably too-unbalancing change to a WWII simulation.

I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.


Also historical Stalin would have little to no concern for the game concept of "US Entry"



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 5:27:13 PM)

quote:

By some German accounts, the splitting of the armored divisions from 10 to 20 at the end of the French campaign was a mistake. There simply wasn't the same amount of maneuvering strength in terms of tanks. Even if they had no wastage from any other campaign, they still would not have been able to bring the 20 divisions up to the standards of their 10 that invaded France.


The re-organisation of the Panzer arm was puzzling – and from what I can make out, it was all to do with Hitler’s obsession with numbers. Thus having twenty odd Panzer Divisions had to be better than having ten, right?

The fact that the twenty were around half as strong in terms of hitting power would be conveniently forgotten. The fact that you need to double the supporting arms and increase the numbers of officers and men (thus diluting the combat experience) was ignored. It was a bizarre decision.

quote:

Also keep in mind that 1/4 of the German tank strength was the Czech tanks, which were totally useless in the face of T34 and KV1 tanks.


In 1940 the strongest Panzer Division had circa 300 tanks. A year later it was 199 – and most had less. The changes could be understood if the quality of tank were improved, but here too the deficiency in production capability (and keep in mind the arguments against Spain here) meant that tank numbers and tank quality was not significantly greater in 1941 for Barbarossa than it had been for Case Yellow. Then factor in the size differential of the enemy and the size of the country and ……

3,332 tanks took part in Barbarossa. This was only 758 more than the 2,574 that took the field for the attack on France. Of these, no less than 1,156 were Panzer Mk I and II, while another 772 were the Czech 38(t). In other words, over half the tanks that took part in Barbarossa were made up of these obsolete models. Only 439 tanks were the Panzer IV.

1941 or 1942? I think the Germans were screwed either way.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 5:32:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.

warspite1

Can you explain further please? I do not understand this.



brian brian -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 5:46:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

(The state of the army was underestimated by Stalin anyway).



great post Klydon, though I think you mean "overestimated" ?

It's too bad the end of the Soviet Union hasn't answered some of those questions a little more definitively. I've always though Hitler's "one kick" quote was quite accurate, he just aimed the kick wrong. Hitler's one chance would have been to drive straight on Moscow, the loss of which would have lost the Communists so much prestige and command/control capabilities that I don't think they could have kept power over the huge country as they were not an inherently popular regime. The Germans would also have had to accomplish this before the Russian people understood the full extant of the brutality about to be imposed on them and the Nazi ideology defeated itself.



Centuur -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 6:10:28 PM)

The Kaiser was mentioned. The Kaiser had one problem during WW I, which the Führer didn't have. The last one defeated France. The Kaiser always had to think about the army first. Also, during WW I the situation in the air was very different...

Let's forget about Spain for the moment. Let's look at the end of the French campaign, from a pure military point of view, without any political influence by Hitler.

Let's assume that during july, the Luftwaffe would seriously start attacking the airfields in England and stick to that tactic, even with Berlin bombed by Bomber Command. It is a known fact that during the battle of Britain, Fighter Command was seriously thinking it had to abandon the airfields in Southeast England...

If that would have happened (and it would have) the British would have lost command of the Southern North Sea and the Channel. Air power is everything in WW II. If you don't command the skies, your navy and soldiers are having a huge disadvantage (as was shown by the Japanese in Singapore). Stuka's are just as good as killing ships as the Japanese planes were. Just look at the British losses in the Med around Malta...

There wasn't a large and good equiped army in the UK at that time. There weren't enough heavy weapons available.

I believe that Germany, if they had invaded England somewhere during August with FTR Command not in Southeast England, they would have been able to get ashore in that area. And once they were ashore, there wasn't any serious army to stop them from marching to London.

To me, the fact that Hitler hesitated for more than a month after the fall of France, made sure that the UK survived the war




warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 6:18:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.

warspite1

Can you explain further please? I do not understand this.

warspite1

I am not sure exactly what you mean but suspect you are saying the loss of Gibraltar means the UK lose control of the South Atlantic?
If so, why do you think this? As usual there are a number of points to consider:

- The Germans give French Morocco, parts of French Central Africa and parts of Algeria to Spain. Remember, Algeria is not a colony – it is part of France! I cannot see the Vichy authorities taking any course of action other than wholesale transfer of allegiance to DeGaulle. That gives the British access to Dakar and Mers-el-Kebir + as much of the French fleet that has managed to escape before the remainder is scuttled.

- One of the first things the British do is capture the Canary Islands.

- The Main benefit of Gibraltar is what? Slightly more range for Axis subs – but as proved in real life, the sub range from France into the South Atlantic and Caribbean was already a problem for the British – so no great difference there.

- If the Italian and/or German fleets can get to Spain/Gibraltar that may be different but a) all the while the British are in Alexandria the Italians are NOT moving the RM out of the Mediterranean (at least not in great numbers). They have convoys to protect still.

- As has been mentioned earlier, it will take time for the German Navy to recover from Weserubung...

- Because of access to a number of ports in North and West Africa + the Canaries and the UK they can still patrol in the Atlantic (as can British subs which get a crack again at Axis shipping – and look what they achieved off Norway).

- The fall of Gibraltar on its own does not achieve anything (which Hitler full well knew). There is plenty more for the Axis to do yet……



brian brian -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 6:18:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.

warspite1

Can you explain further please? I do not understand this.



The Germans operated a blockade running operation from Bordeaux; 50% of the ships got through from the Far East, though only something like 16 of 32. They were in some need of natural rubber - more natural rubber meant less oil diverted to making synthetic rubber, I believe. They stockpiled before the war and also got some from the Russians in 1940 but more would have still helped. A fall of Gibraltar leading to a fall of Suez could have possibly further improved that situation, particularly after the loss of Malaya. Some rubber was produced in South America as well.

They also had good economic connections to Central and South America, before the war. Opening sea connections to those countries during the war would have probably improved German imports of raw materials such as strategic minerals and foodstuffs. Though of course they would have to fight their own Battle of the South Atlantic with the Royal Navy attempting to maintain such imports, and access to Spanish and Portuguese colonies would have been very helpful to them in such a campaign.

How significant such connections would have been, I can't say. But the war would have been very, very different without Gibraltar in Allied hands in many ways, including the political dynamics in South America.



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 6:22:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I do think German access to the South Atlantic would have been a solid plus for them in an economic sense and a good partial return for an investment in payments to Spain. The Royal Navy would have kept this only partial access, probably without access to Central America which had historical economic connections to Germany, but some access would be better than no access.

warspite1

Can you explain further please? I do not understand this.



The Germans operated a blockade running operation from Bordeaux; 50% of the ships got through from the Far East, though only something like 16 of 32. They were in some need of natural rubber - more natural rubber meant less oil diverted to making synthetic rubber, I believe. They stockpiled before the war and also got some from the Russians in 1940 but more would have still helped. A fall of Gibraltar leading to a fall of Suez could have possibly further improved that situation, particularly after the loss of Malaya. Some rubber was produced in South America as well.

They also had good economic connections to Central and South America, before the war. Opening sea connections to those countries during the war would have probably improved German imports of raw materials such as strategic minerals and foodstuffs. Though of course they would have to fight their own Battle of the South Atlantic with the Royal Navy attempting to maintain such imports, and access to Spanish and Portuguese colonies would have been very helpful to them in such a campaign.

How significant such connections would have been, I can't say. But the war would have been very, very different without Gibraltar in Allied hands in many ways, including the political dynamics in South America.
warspite1

Our posts have crossed but I disagree with this for the reasons previously stated.



brian brian -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 6:38:12 PM)

It is all hard to say really. The Royal Navy kept England in the war but it was a very serious struggle all the way until the first quarter of 1943. Axis access to the remainder of the European coast and the NW African coast would have been a dramatic difference and there would have likely been an entirely un-historical theater of ground war - could a Rommel have taken Dakar? The CW was stretched extremely thin as it was, and the South Atlantic becomes quite a bit more narrow than the North Atlantic. Possibly the French Empire staying in the fight could have kept the overall balance the same, who knows?



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 6:44:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The Kaiser was mentioned. The Kaiser had one problem during WW I, which the Führer didn't have. The last one defeated France. The Kaiser always had to think about the army first. Also, during WW I the situation in the air was very different...

Let's forget about Spain for the moment. Let's look at the end of the French campaign, from a pure military point of view, without any political influence by Hitler.

Let's assume that during july, the Luftwaffe would seriously start attacking the airfields in England and stick to that tactic, even with Berlin bombed by Bomber Command. It is a known fact that during the battle of Britain, Fighter Command was seriously thinking it had to abandon the airfields in Southeast England...

If that would have happened (and it would have) the British would have lost command of the Southern North Sea and the Channel. Air power is everything in WW II. If you don't command the skies, your navy and soldiers are having a huge disadvantage (as was shown by the Japanese in Singapore). Stuka's are just as good as killing ships as the Japanese planes were. Just look at the British losses in the Med around Malta...

There wasn't a large and good equiped army in the UK at that time. There weren't enough heavy weapons available.

I believe that Germany, if they had invaded England somewhere during August with FTR Command not in Southeast England, they would have been able to get ashore in that area. And once they were ashore, there wasn't any serious army to stop them from marching to London.

To me, the fact that Hitler hesitated for more than a month after the fall of France, made sure that the UK survived the war


warspite1

I haven't got the energy for another Sealion/Battle of Britain debate [:(] and certainly not one where basic facts are ignored. When was the switch to the cities? When were the barges ready? An invasion in August? Really?

Sealion
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3827904&mpage=1&key=barges Starts around post 30.

Battle of Britain
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3773378&mpage=1&key=battle%2Cbritain



warspite1 -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 6:50:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

It is all hard to say really. The Royal Navy kept England in the war but it was a very serious struggle all the way until the first quarter of 1943. Axis access to the remainder of the European coast and the NW African coast would have been a dramatic difference and there would have likely been an entirely un-historical theater of ground war - could a Rommel have taken Dakar? The CW was stretched extremely thin as it was, and the South Atlantic becomes quite a bit more narrow than the North Atlantic. Possibly the French Empire staying in the fight could have kept the overall balance the same, who knows?
warspite1

Quite who knows. But why is Rommel now chasing off down a dead end that is Senegal? How on earth does he get there with a couple of Panzer Divisions? But more importantly - how long does it take? - but most of all, why is he bothering? The whole point of the Mediterranean strategy is to evict the CW from the Mediterranean - and specifically Suez. If Rommel goes charging off to Senegal via Morocco - great!! That will leave Wavell's 30,000 to kick the Italian 5th and 10th Armies out of Libya.



Centuur -> RE: The Italian Spear (10/10/2015 7:03:29 PM)

I don't agree totally about Vichy, Mr. Warspite. The attacks on the French fleet by the British in July 1940 is something which pops up in my mind...

Let's assume Hitler would have given in to Franco's demands about the gains of territory and they would be able to get something of a deal (which I doubt would ever have happened, because Franco would never have changed his demands since he was leading a totally destroyed country at that time, which had problems feeding his own people).

Now, it's just after those horrendous attacks on the French Fleet. So Vichy gets persuaded to accept Spanish troops as extra garrison forces in North Africa to prevent any more British involvement in those area's. And about a year later a Vichy collapse happens and Spain takes Algeria and French Morocco. Something of a "Suner-Ribbentrop" pact.

The French fleet? Their wasn't any fighting spirit left in the French navy commanders after the British attacked those ships. That was proven in 1942, when the French, even with the ships having enough fuel to sail to North Africa, decided to stay in port after Petain got sacked in Vichy. Even when the Germans decided to try to grab the ships in Toulon, the French scuttled the ships. I believe only a couple of SUB's and a cruiser sailed for North Africa...





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875