RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> After Action Reports



Message


warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/16/2017 9:25:35 PM)

Turn 39
23rd April 1941


The CW position post initial movement. Note the arrival of much of the 4th Indian Division from Bardia to try and assist getting a supply route open to the east.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/75FEA4455D6B4975A2D394FFF8AE7EA8.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/16/2017 9:33:14 PM)

Turn 39 - Round 1
23rd April 1941


The turn begins with three bombardments. Two at Tobruk, and one in support of an attack to come mounted by the 4th Indian Division.

All three bombardments provided decent results.

Round 3

This is followed up by an attack by the 4th Indian Division which forces the Italian units back. A further bombardment is mounted by the Royal Navy off Tobruk. 50% of the turn remains.

Round 6

The Indian bombardment of the Italian Ariete forces continues and the cavalry regiment and two infantry battalions prepare to attack.

Round 8

4th Indian Division force the Ariete into further retreats, although the elite Bersaglieri Regiment holds their ground.

To the west, a mixed British and Australian attack succeeds in wiping out a Bersaglieri Regiment from the Trento Division - and the British gain possession of the road east.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/9128DEC9CAD240768399C36D1A96ABC6.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/16/2017 10:11:13 PM)

Turn 39 - Axis Turn
23rd April 1941


The AI gives every indication it is not going to stand for the British armour escaping....

The surrounded Australian 15th Battalion is wiped out south of the Jebel.

1. But then the action truly starts with an Italian attack on the British infantry between Gazala and Tobruk. The attack is beaten back with no losses to speak of.
2. South of 'Knightsbridge' the British armour defending the southern approaches to the road is brought under artillery fire. There are few casualties.
3. To the west, the forces surrounding a Bersaglieri regiment are beaten back and the Italian unit breaks the encirclement.
5. As said, the Germans are not massively impressed with the events of the last turn. Elements from the German 15th and 21st Panzer Division and the Italian Trento Division, attack the British units that had just captured the road. The British retreat. Neame takes grim satisfaction that at least these units aren't bothering the Tobruk garrison.
6. The Italians fight back against the Indians and smash through their defense, splitting the force in two.
7. The British infantry west of Tobruk are on the receiving end yet again - but still they hold firm.
8. South of Knightsbridge a squadron of the 5th RTR and a battalion of the Essex Regiment hold off an attack by Italian infantry.
9. But to the northwest the Germans continue to push the British back, forcing them to concede more of the road.
11. The Germans from the north and the Italians from the south continue to put the British armour under intolerable pressure and the 5th RTR and Essex infantry are forced to retreat.
12. The Indians are in all sorts of bother thanks to Italian armour and artillery carving up the infantry.
16. The Australian 7th cavalry Regiment are pushed back by the German panzers. The CW forces are becoming more and more widely spread and disordered.
21. The Germans resume bombardment of the Tobruk defences....
24. The Indians are almost broken. This is serious...
28. The British are forced out of Gazala. These are worrying times everywhere for Neame and his staff. He needs his divisional generals to get a grip.
32. The Germans attack at Giarabub, causing the Czech battalion to retreat.

57 attacks in total!!! That was a spectacularly unpleasant turn.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/CA04B6F193E64B30A155820F7D2CBC64.jpg[/image]




henri51 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/17/2017 8:43:14 PM)

I guess this game shows why the British abandoned most western positions when they saw Rommel's three-pronged attack across the desert, and ran for the hills...

Henri




Zorch -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/17/2017 9:44:57 PM)

With hindsight, the move into Cyrenaica (sic) looks mistaken. But it's hard to stop pursuing a beaten foe.




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 6:23:56 AM)

I’m not sure I would agree with that. With hindsight there are things that should have been done differently – but abandoning Cyrenaica was not one of them. The plan was to knock Italy out of the war. Clearing the Italians from Cyrenaica was a necessary part of that – and of course, with hindsight, completing the job by removing them from Tripolitania should have been the priority. What doesn’t seem sensible in the circumstances would have been to simply walk back to the Egyptian border. The Desert War was a battle for airfields, and airbases in Cyrenaica would a) help limit the danger to Alexandria and the Royal Navy, b) help with the interdiction of Italian supply to Tripoli, c) assist in the supply and protection of Malta, not to mention d) help protect the flank of any misguided attempts to help Greece [;)]. Simply giving back the Italians their forward airfields as well as the ports of Benghazi and Tobruk defies military logic (not that much of British and French thinking in the early war didn't defy military logic [:D]).

But sadly the decision was taken to assist the Greeks*, leaving behind to defend Cyrenaica…..er not very much actually. The 2nd Armoured and 7th Armoured were divisions in name only, nowhere near full strength and in at least one case, they relied on captured Italian tanks. But in addition to the loss of British armour it also meant the Aussie and Kiwi infantry and a large part of the small desert air force were taken away too. The introduction of the Luftwaffe was a game changer and effectively closed the Med – something the Italians had not been able to properly achieve – making reinforcement much longer (the air via Takoradi, the army via the Cape).

*It should be remembered that Greece was one of the British few allies at the time. I think abandoning Greece would have been the militarily sensible thing to do, but politically? Interestingly I’ve read recently, contrary to the 'usual' versions of events, that it was the British military that said an expedition to Greece should be mounted. Allegedly Churchill warned Eden (who was sent on the fact finding mission to Greece) that he did not want to risk another Norwegian fiasco and that he should not feel pressured into making a decision to go if that was likely. But supposedly Wavell, Cunningham and Longmore were for it.

Right or wrong, and who's ever fault it was, the decision to assist Greece was taken even though the small British army was still rebuilding from the defeat in France, the threat of invasion had not disappeared and the Italians had not been kicked out of Africa. But, help to Greece was going to be given, was denuding the holding forces in Cyrenaica a poor decision based on known events at the time? Maybe. The Italians botched the ‘invasion’ of Egypt, even with 10th Army intact. Now it had been destroyed there was no reason to believe 5th Army was going to be able to offer something different. I don’t know what consideration had been given to German assistance being provided at that time – but the fact the Luftwaffe had moved in to the theatre at the start of the year should have been a warning – but even then, with the Italians seemingly in disarray, the feeling was probably that the RN could restrict reinforcement / resupply by the Germans.





Zorch -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 9:31:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I’m not sure I would agree with that. With hindsight there are things that should have been done differently – but abandoning Cyrenaica was not one of them. The plan was to knock Italy out of the war. Clearing the Italians from Cyrenaica was a necessary part of that – and of course, with hindsight, completing the job by removing them from Tripolitania should have been the priority. What doesn’t seem sensible in the circumstances would have been to simply walk back to the Egyptian border. The Desert War was a battle for airfields, and airbases in Cyrenaica would a) help limit the danger to Alexandria and the Royal Navy, b) help with the interdiction of Italian supply to Tripoli, c) assist in the supply and protection of Malta, not to mention d) help protect the flank of any misguided attempts to help Greece [;)]. Simply giving back the Italians their forward airfields as well as the ports of Benghazi and Tobruk defies military logic (not that much of British and French thinking in the early war didn't defy military logic [:D]).

But sadly the decision was taken to assist the Greeks*, leaving behind to defend Cyrenaica…..er not very much actually. The 2nd Armoured and 7th Armoured were divisions in name only, nowhere near full strength and in at least one case, they relied on captured Italian tanks. But in addition to the loss of British armour it also meant the Aussie and Kiwi infantry and a large part of the small desert air force were taken away too. The introduction of the Luftwaffe was a game changer and effectively closed the Med – something the Italians had not been able to properly achieve – making reinforcement much longer (the air via Takoradi, the army via the Cape).

*It should be remembered that Greece was one of the British few allies at the time. I think abandoning Greece would have been the militarily sensible thing to do, but politically? Interestingly I’ve read recently, contrary to the 'usual' versions of events, that it was the British military that said an expedition to Greece should be mounted. Allegedly Churchill warned Eden (who was sent on the fact finding mission to Greece) that he did not want to risk another Norwegian fiasco and that he should not feel pressured into making a decision to go if that was likely. But supposedly Wavell, Cunningham and Longmore were for it.

Right or wrong, and who's ever fault it was, the decision to assist Greece was taken even though the small British army was still rebuilding from the defeat in France, the threat of invasion had not disappeared and the Italians had not been kicked out of Africa. But, help to Greece was going to be given, was denuding the holding forces in Cyrenaica a poor decision based on known events at the time? Maybe. The Italians botched the ‘invasion’ of Egypt, even with 10th Army intact. Now it had been destroyed there was no reason to believe 5th Army was going to be able to offer something different. I don’t know what consideration had been given to German assistance being provided at that time – but the fact the Luftwaffe had moved in to the theatre at the start of the year should have been a warning – but even then, with the Italians seemingly in disarray, the feeling was probably that the RN could restrict reinforcement / resupply by the Germans.



I was referring to your game, not to real life. [;)]
I agree the Greek adventure was a mistake, in real life.




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 5:37:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I’m not sure I would agree with that. With hindsight there are things that should have been done differently – but abandoning Cyrenaica was not one of them. The plan was to knock Italy out of the war. Clearing the Italians from Cyrenaica was a necessary part of that – and of course, with hindsight, completing the job by removing them from Tripolitania should have been the priority. What doesn’t seem sensible in the circumstances would have been to simply walk back to the Egyptian border. The Desert War was a battle for airfields, and airbases in Cyrenaica would a) help limit the danger to Alexandria and the Royal Navy, b) help with the interdiction of Italian supply to Tripoli, c) assist in the supply and protection of Malta, not to mention d) help protect the flank of any misguided attempts to help Greece [;)]. Simply giving back the Italians their forward airfields as well as the ports of Benghazi and Tobruk defies military logic (not that much of British and French thinking in the early war didn't defy military logic [:D]).

But sadly the decision was taken to assist the Greeks*, leaving behind to defend Cyrenaica…..er not very much actually. The 2nd Armoured and 7th Armoured were divisions in name only, nowhere near full strength and in at least one case, they relied on captured Italian tanks. But in addition to the loss of British armour it also meant the Aussie and Kiwi infantry and a large part of the small desert air force were taken away too. The introduction of the Luftwaffe was a game changer and effectively closed the Med – something the Italians had not been able to properly achieve – making reinforcement much longer (the air via Takoradi, the army via the Cape).

*It should be remembered that Greece was one of the British few allies at the time. I think abandoning Greece would have been the militarily sensible thing to do, but politically? Interestingly I’ve read recently, contrary to the 'usual' versions of events, that it was the British military that said an expedition to Greece should be mounted. Allegedly Churchill warned Eden (who was sent on the fact finding mission to Greece) that he did not want to risk another Norwegian fiasco and that he should not feel pressured into making a decision to go if that was likely. But supposedly Wavell, Cunningham and Longmore were for it.

Right or wrong, and who's ever fault it was, the decision to assist Greece was taken even though the small British army was still rebuilding from the defeat in France, the threat of invasion had not disappeared and the Italians had not been kicked out of Africa. But, help to Greece was going to be given, was denuding the holding forces in Cyrenaica a poor decision based on known events at the time? Maybe. The Italians botched the ‘invasion’ of Egypt, even with 10th Army intact. Now it had been destroyed there was no reason to believe 5th Army was going to be able to offer something different. I don’t know what consideration had been given to German assistance being provided at that time – but the fact the Luftwaffe had moved in to the theatre at the start of the year should have been a warning – but even then, with the Italians seemingly in disarray, the feeling was probably that the RN could restrict reinforcement / resupply by the Germans.



I was referring to your game, not to real life. [;)]
I agree the Greek adventure was a mistake, in real life.
warspite1

Soz old fruit, you were replying to the previous poster, who as far as I could tell was talking about real life.

However, I still disagree with you [;)]

Although I don't know how this game plays out, I know that the Germans get a victory bonus for taking Tobruk. Moreover in real life Rommel couldn't move on Egypt without taking Tobruk. I assume the supply rules adequately reflect this (and I base my answer on that assumption).




Olorin -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 6:06:05 PM)

The British should have sent 20 divisions to Greece or none at all.

Since they lacked that force, the meager force that was sent was not an assistance at all, it simply hastened the deutsch decision to invade, because the reason for the invasion was the British presence in Greece.

Terrible decision for both nations.




Zorch -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 6:15:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I’m not sure I would agree with that. With hindsight there are things that should have been done differently – but abandoning Cyrenaica was not one of them. The plan was to knock Italy out of the war. Clearing the Italians from Cyrenaica was a necessary part of that – and of course, with hindsight, completing the job by removing them from Tripolitania should have been the priority. What doesn’t seem sensible in the circumstances would have been to simply walk back to the Egyptian border. The Desert War was a battle for airfields, and airbases in Cyrenaica would a) help limit the danger to Alexandria and the Royal Navy, b) help with the interdiction of Italian supply to Tripoli, c) assist in the supply and protection of Malta, not to mention d) help protect the flank of any misguided attempts to help Greece [;)]. Simply giving back the Italians their forward airfields as well as the ports of Benghazi and Tobruk defies military logic (not that much of British and French thinking in the early war didn't defy military logic [:D]).

But sadly the decision was taken to assist the Greeks*, leaving behind to defend Cyrenaica…..er not very much actually. The 2nd Armoured and 7th Armoured were divisions in name only, nowhere near full strength and in at least one case, they relied on captured Italian tanks. But in addition to the loss of British armour it also meant the Aussie and Kiwi infantry and a large part of the small desert air force were taken away too. The introduction of the Luftwaffe was a game changer and effectively closed the Med – something the Italians had not been able to properly achieve – making reinforcement much longer (the air via Takoradi, the army via the Cape).

*It should be remembered that Greece was one of the British few allies at the time. I think abandoning Greece would have been the militarily sensible thing to do, but politically? Interestingly I’ve read recently, contrary to the 'usual' versions of events, that it was the British military that said an expedition to Greece should be mounted. Allegedly Churchill warned Eden (who was sent on the fact finding mission to Greece) that he did not want to risk another Norwegian fiasco and that he should not feel pressured into making a decision to go if that was likely. But supposedly Wavell, Cunningham and Longmore were for it.

Right or wrong, and who's ever fault it was, the decision to assist Greece was taken even though the small British army was still rebuilding from the defeat in France, the threat of invasion had not disappeared and the Italians had not been kicked out of Africa. But, help to Greece was going to be given, was denuding the holding forces in Cyrenaica a poor decision based on known events at the time? Maybe. The Italians botched the ‘invasion’ of Egypt, even with 10th Army intact. Now it had been destroyed there was no reason to believe 5th Army was going to be able to offer something different. I don’t know what consideration had been given to German assistance being provided at that time – but the fact the Luftwaffe had moved in to the theatre at the start of the year should have been a warning – but even then, with the Italians seemingly in disarray, the feeling was probably that the RN could restrict reinforcement / resupply by the Germans.



I was referring to your game, not to real life. [;)]
I agree the Greek adventure was a mistake, in real life.
warspite1

Soz old fruit, you were replying to the previous poster, who as far as I could tell was talking about real life.

However, I still disagree with you [;)]

Although I don't know how this game plays out, I know that the Germans get a victory bonus for taking Tobruk. Moreover in real life Rommel couldn't move on Egypt without taking Tobruk. I assume the supply rules adequately reflect this (and I base my answer on that assumption).


I'm not saying abandon Tobruk - just don't go past Gazala with major forces.




Oberst_Klink -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 6:16:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

The British should have sent 20 divisions to Greece or none at all.

Since they lacked that force, the meager force that was sent was not an assistance at all, it simply hastened the deutsch decision to invade, because the reason for the invasion was the British presence in Greece.

Terrible decision for both nations.

Kalispera,

Etsi, re. It was indeed one of the reasons for 'Operation Marita'; Churchill deploying more Brits down there, but let's not forget the 'blunder' of Mussolini when Italy invaded your country in October 1940. The factors for the, shall we say, intervention in Yugoslavia and Greece at the same time was because of the Yugoslavs 'refusal' to join the Ti-pact and the involvement of the Brits to reinforce troops in Greece. And yes... it was a tragedy for the people there.

P.S. You do know the story of Ioannis Rallis, I take it?

Just my 2p...

Klink, Oberst




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 7:17:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

The British should have sent 20 divisions to Greece or none at all.

Since they lacked that force, the meager force that was sent was not an assistance at all, it simply hastened the deutsch decision to invade, because the reason for the invasion was the British presence in Greece.

Terrible decision for both nations.
warspite1

Agreed the decision was bad, but I can't believe it hastened the German intervention. Hitler simply could not afford a threat to Ploesti.

So let's say the military geniuses (that seemed to totally forget what happened in Norway and France) decide to concentrate on kicking Italy out of Tripolitania and forget Greece. Was there a good chance that the British would have succeeded? I think so - or at least forced the Italians to rush reinforcements to Libya, rather than Albania.

Thus the day of decision on the Eastern Front draws near and the Greeks are well on their way to taking Albania. With Crete in Greek hands, the threat to Ploesti was real from an RAF deployment there - regardless of British troop involvement on the Greek mainland or not.




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 7:32:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I’m not sure I would agree with that. With hindsight there are things that should have been done differently – but abandoning Cyrenaica was not one of them. The plan was to knock Italy out of the war. Clearing the Italians from Cyrenaica was a necessary part of that – and of course, with hindsight, completing the job by removing them from Tripolitania should have been the priority. What doesn’t seem sensible in the circumstances would have been to simply walk back to the Egyptian border. The Desert War was a battle for airfields, and airbases in Cyrenaica would a) help limit the danger to Alexandria and the Royal Navy, b) help with the interdiction of Italian supply to Tripoli, c) assist in the supply and protection of Malta, not to mention d) help protect the flank of any misguided attempts to help Greece [;)]. Simply giving back the Italians their forward airfields as well as the ports of Benghazi and Tobruk defies military logic (not that much of British and French thinking in the early war didn't defy military logic [:D]).

But sadly the decision was taken to assist the Greeks*, leaving behind to defend Cyrenaica…..er not very much actually. The 2nd Armoured and 7th Armoured were divisions in name only, nowhere near full strength and in at least one case, they relied on captured Italian tanks. But in addition to the loss of British armour it also meant the Aussie and Kiwi infantry and a large part of the small desert air force were taken away too. The introduction of the Luftwaffe was a game changer and effectively closed the Med – something the Italians had not been able to properly achieve – making reinforcement much longer (the air via Takoradi, the army via the Cape).

*It should be remembered that Greece was one of the British few allies at the time. I think abandoning Greece would have been the militarily sensible thing to do, but politically? Interestingly I’ve read recently, contrary to the 'usual' versions of events, that it was the British military that said an expedition to Greece should be mounted. Allegedly Churchill warned Eden (who was sent on the fact finding mission to Greece) that he did not want to risk another Norwegian fiasco and that he should not feel pressured into making a decision to go if that was likely. But supposedly Wavell, Cunningham and Longmore were for it.

Right or wrong, and who's ever fault it was, the decision to assist Greece was taken even though the small British army was still rebuilding from the defeat in France, the threat of invasion had not disappeared and the Italians had not been kicked out of Africa. But, help to Greece was going to be given, was denuding the holding forces in Cyrenaica a poor decision based on known events at the time? Maybe. The Italians botched the ‘invasion’ of Egypt, even with 10th Army intact. Now it had been destroyed there was no reason to believe 5th Army was going to be able to offer something different. I don’t know what consideration had been given to German assistance being provided at that time – but the fact the Luftwaffe had moved in to the theatre at the start of the year should have been a warning – but even then, with the Italians seemingly in disarray, the feeling was probably that the RN could restrict reinforcement / resupply by the Germans.



I was referring to your game, not to real life. [;)]
I agree the Greek adventure was a mistake, in real life.
warspite1

Soz old fruit, you were replying to the previous poster, who as far as I could tell was talking about real life.

However, I still disagree with you [;)]

Although I don't know how this game plays out, I know that the Germans get a victory bonus for taking Tobruk. Moreover in real life Rommel couldn't move on Egypt without taking Tobruk. I assume the supply rules adequately reflect this (and I base my answer on that assumption).


I'm not saying abandon Tobruk - just don't go past Gazala with major forces.
warspite1

You may be right, but it doesn't feel right giving the Axis free lunches. If realistic then they will feel every tank loss. Personally I think my plan was right - but its execution was what is to be expected from a total wargaming **** ***....




Zorch -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 7:58:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

The British should have sent 20 divisions to Greece or none at all.

Since they lacked that force, the meager force that was sent was not an assistance at all, it simply hastened the deutsch decision to invade, because the reason for the invasion was the British presence in Greece.

Terrible decision for both nations.
warspite1

Agreed the decision was bad, but I can't believe it hastened the German intervention. Hitler simply could not afford a threat to Ploesti.

So let's say the military geniuses (that seemed to totally forget what happened in Norway and France) decide to concentrate on kicking Italy out of Tripolitania and forget Greece. Was there a good chance that the British would have succeeded? I think so - or at least forced the Italians to rush reinforcements to Libya, rather than Albania.

Thus the day of decision on the Eastern Front draws near and the Greeks are well on their way to taking Albania. With Crete in Greek hands, the threat to Ploesti was real from an RAF deployment there - regardless of British troop involvement on the Greek mainland or not.


The Hitler of 1938 would have summoned the Greek and Italian ambassadors, and in his most threatening voice, dictated a peace treaty to them. He would reduce Athens to rubble if the Geeks refused. And cutoff all aid to Mussolini if he balked. For good measure he would tell the Greeks to kick all British out of the country (no air bases on Crete). Mussolini would have to accept his humiliation, as he realized his forces were losing and his economy dependent on Germany.
I could see Hitler attacking Yugoslavia anyway; but that wouldn't delay Barbarossa.




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 8:06:37 PM)

I think this ignores the relationship between the two twats. After Mussolini gave Hitler a free pass over Austria, Hitler said he would never forget it - and he didn't.

I can't see how Hitler could humiliate the Italians like that and still expect Mussolini's regime to survive. Anything that wouldn't humiliate Il Duce would not be acceptable to Greece who, after all were well inside Albania, having cleared Italians off their soil.




Zorch -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/18/2017 9:15:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think this ignores the relationship between the two twats. After Mussolini gave Hitler a free pass over Austria, Hitler said he would never forget it - and he didn't.

I can't see how Hitler could humiliate the Italians like that and still expect Mussolini's regime to survive. Anything that wouldn't humiliate Il Duce would not be acceptable to Greece who, after all were well inside Albania, having cleared Italians off their soil.

The Greeks could be intimidated.
Mussolini was a pain to Hitler, who would relish a chance to show him who's boss. Their relationship was way past the Brenner Pass days. I doubt Mussolini would have fallen. Remember how much it took before the King & Badaglio deposed him in September 1943. But Hitler didn't even try this approach...a sign of his declining mental abilities, or overconfidence?




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 2:56:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think this ignores the relationship between the two twats. After Mussolini gave Hitler a free pass over Austria, Hitler said he would never forget it - and he didn't.

I can't see how Hitler could humiliate the Italians like that and still expect Mussolini's regime to survive. Anything that wouldn't humiliate Il Duce would not be acceptable to Greece who, after all were well inside Albania, having cleared Italians off their soil.

The Greeks could be intimidated.
Mussolini was a pain to Hitler, who would relish a chance to show him who's boss. Their relationship was way past the Brenner Pass days. I doubt Mussolini would have fallen. Remember how much it took before the King & Badaglio deposed him in September 1943. But Hitler didn't even try this approach...a sign of his declining mental abilities, or overconfidence?
warspite1

I think we'll agree to disagree on that. Yes Italy was a pain to Hitler because that total buffoon Mussolini dragged them into a war they were totally unprepared for. But forcing Italy to sign a peace treaty with the Greeks, having lost thousands upon thousands of men for no reason?

Even if Mussolini survived such a slap, his authority would have been irreparably damaged and his survival would be a constant unknown from there on in. In a worst case for Hitler, Mussolini would have faced a revolt and, having stirred up trouble in the Mediterranean theatre, the risk was Italy would suddenly exit stage left leaving the CW masters of the Middle Sea and presenting the British with an easy victory.

The Greeks could be intimidated? Yes, Mussolini thought that too.....




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 3:00:29 AM)

Turn 40 - RAF, RAAF and FF
26th April 1941


Meanwhile back at the ranch.....I need to go through what I actually have left after that pretty monstrous turn.....

I'll make a start with the air forces.

The CW seem to have been given two Blenheim units - which have been placed in Tobruk!!! Presumably these are the two units that were destroyed a few turns back but have been reconstituted as their status is untried. Similarly a Blenheim unit has appeared at Fort Capuzzo with the same status.
[image]local://upfiles/28156/DB8E9F164AA1420FA22B406FAF06658E.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 3:50:05 AM)

Turn 40 - RAF, RAAF and FF
26th April 1941


So let's put a little flesh on the bones. First things first, the Blenheim squadrons have been ordered out of Tobruk. The 12 available squadrons are placed in three locations - Bardia, Sidi Barrani and Mersah Matruh - two squadrons of fighters and two of bombers at each airbase. Nothing will be placed west of Bardia from here on in.

The CW air force situation is now as follows. All units at or near full strength, but 50% of the squadrons are untried:

So desperate is the situation that all units - regardless of status - are put on alert - fighters = air superiority - bombers = combat support

[image]local://upfiles/28156/9B21E158DE58444BB450BBCB41F87CE3.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 5:02:01 PM)

Turn 40
26th April 1941


Dire Straits....

A glance at the overall position following initial movement - to be followed by a drill down into each pocket.
[image]local://upfiles/28156/D164F6719EE74CB7A2BD8E725DA518EF.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 5:53:32 PM)

Turn 40 - 1. Tobruk
26th April 1941


The defences of Tobruk are bolstered by the stragglers that have come in from the west. One regiment of much needed heavy AA failed to make it and the gunners are caught out in the open east of Gazala.

In Tobruk, five battalions now man the eastern zone, while only two are available to the west. The Staffordshire battalion is ordered up to the line, leaving two battalions to guard the western approaches. The reserves consist of just one Polish cavalry regiment....

Both battalions of the 5th Panzer Regiment are spotted forming part of the cordon around the port.

Two regiments of artillery are ordered to fire on the German positions, along with the RN. Most of artillery however is recovering from their exertions of just getting to Tobruk.....

[image]local://upfiles/28156/4B299E5183A94CEDB26E3B2590431782.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 6:19:51 PM)

Turn 40 - 2. Gabr Saleh
26th April 1941


The stunning defeat of the 3rd Motor Brigade means that Neame has little choice but to throw in all available reserves from Bardia and the surrounding area almost regardless of their supply and readiness situation.

The call goes out - "if its got a barrel and there is a spare shell lying around, fire the bloody thing". The Australian artillery concentrates on the two surrounded units - which includes the Ariete Divisional HQ, while the British artillery to the west, concentrate on the Bersaglieri battalion.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/799184964B804151A5A4DCE917A0B071.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 7:39:41 PM)

Turn 40 - 3. Knightsbridge + 4. Bir Hachem
26th April 1941


The situation of the British armour is dire. The previous attack was devastating and the individual units have become completely separated from their parent units and divisional HQ's.

One example is the 3rd Armoured Brigade HQ, which makes contact with the 11th Hussars - only thing is they are from completely different divisions....

As a sign of how bad things are, the 3rd Hussars are down to just 2 tanks, while the 5th RTR have 10....

The units here have been ordered to sit tight and await developments elsewhere...

[image]local://upfiles/28156/53B7C90C40A544D5AE05B6E50117F6DA.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 8:06:32 PM)

Turn 40 - 5. Rotunda Segnali
26th April 1941


The situation here, slightly to the west, is just as bad and these units too are told to do nothing at present....

[image]local://upfiles/28156/2FD9F5F37F344040A802DEEFCC5CA6A9.jpg[/image]




Zorch -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 8:08:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Turn 40 - 2. Gabr Saleh
26th April 1941


The stunning defeat of the 3rd Motor Brigade means that Neame has little choice but to throw in all available reserves from Bardia and the surrounding area almost regardless of their supply and readiness situation.

The call goes out - "if its got a barrel and there is a spare shell lying around, fire the bloody thing". The Australian artillery concentrates on the two surrounded units - which includes the Ariete Divisional HQ, while the British artillery to the west, concentrate on the Bersaglieri battalion.

[image]local://upfiles/28156/799184964B804151A5A4DCE917A0B071.jpg[/image]

Baldrick!

[image]local://upfiles/34241/859AD1157C5B436B86F24C5536D35106.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 8:45:41 PM)

Turn 40 - 6. Bir Tengeder
26th April 1941


The Australians, without much in the way of transport, have moved as far as they can, its simply a case of seeing how many losses they take - or will the British hold the Italians back long enough to allow them to get away?

[image]local://upfiles/28156/334C074E085245EDAC14F296248EC3AD.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 9:03:55 PM)

Turn 40
26th April 1941


There are five bombardments to be carried out:

1. At Gabr Saleh the Australian Field Artillery concentrates on the Ariete HQ and causes some minor damage
2. Polish artillery at Tobruk cause more damage (13%) to the besieging Germans.
3. Back to Gabr Saleh and the numbers rise (16% damage is caused by the Indian artillery against the Italian motorised infantry).
4. The heaviest bombardment is by the remainder of the Australian Field Artillery against the Italian AA units in the east of the pocket.
5. Back to Tobruk and a healthy 24% losses are meted out by the RN. Sadly only one tanks is destroyed.

The CW then follow up the bombardments as follows:

[image]local://upfiles/28156/9917F542F4A44137941E21CCF27AE357.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 10:05:05 PM)

Turn 40
26th April 1941


Rats!

[image]local://upfiles/28156/D6BD3B30E8A841D08B56BCE29D71AF96.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 10:10:59 PM)

Turn 40
26th April 1941


A summary of the brief CW turn....

[image]local://upfiles/28156/F7ADA33A43784E12B1EEF296CF5BD0B8.jpg[/image]




warspite1 -> RE: Campaign For North Africa 40D-43 (12/19/2017 10:23:43 PM)

Turn 40 - Axis Turn
26th April 1941


The Axis are on the march. Even before the combat rounds being two units are destroyed. Its going to be a long turn.....

..... and it was a long turn [:(]




[image]local://upfiles/28156/340BE70175724DB1AF5DFF3352451261.jpg[/image]




Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375