RE: The question to ask about The Italians

RE: The question to ask about The Italians (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/1/2020 8:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay You're just suggesting that the Japs go to war with the US and British. That's going to be saving them a fortune! warspite1 What are you talking about now?? quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Irrelevant. The point is, that no collapse of government occurred, despite years of extra war in China. warspite1 Are we ignoring July 1944 after the failure to secure a withdrawal from China then? Is that what we are playing here, ignore the bits you don’t like? quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The wiki article and common sense tells us that Barbarossa was a prerequisite for the Rising Sun offensive. No "signs", no "logic" lead anywhere else. warspite1 Nope. Only if you ignore the situation that Japan are facing. Barbarossa was NOT a prerequisite, in real life Barbarossa meant the question - North or South - was effectively answered because it took the decision largely away. But with no Barbarossa the same options still face Japan, the same problems still face Japan, and the same solutions still face Japan. Nothing, but nothing says they can’t take the same path, and all signs and logic heads them south.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/1/2020 9:02:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe So the Royal Navy could go in at night and wipe out the invasion forces and leave the area before dawn. I am glad that you agree with me. While in port they are defended by field artillery and eventually, coastal batteries. Trading DDs for barges is a win for Germany. warspite1 Well that is pretty hilarious. Trading barges is a win for Germany..... how many barges do you think the Germans have? What happpens to the follow up waves and the replacements and the supplies when those barges are sunk? No, trading barges is not a win for Germany because they are irreplaceable. With the barges in port during the invasion they are not transporting men, equipment, and/or supplies across the Channel so that is the win for the United Kingdom. The RAF bomber command would still be bombing them so no destroyers would be needed while the barges are still being sunk. United Kingdom wins, Nazi Germany and Curtis Lemay lose.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/1/2020 9:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe One million men in the Turkish Army with 42 infantry divisions, two Cavalry divisions, plus assorted brigades including armour. The Turkish Straits have to be crossed under fire. So they could plan it, they just have to fight it. This is not out of line with SPI. They have 30 divisions with one division a week arriving as reinforcement. So, some of those may have been reserves. But, they are distributed all over Turkey (see the attached shot), and 21 of those divisions (and all the reinforcements) are "Static" divisions - like they don't have transport for their heavy equipment and have to manhandle it everywhere in order to move. The Turks were very poorly equipped. This makes them far less than ideal. They have to decide far in advance just where they will be deployed, and that's pretty much where they will stay. SPI has 12 divisions in front of the Bosporus and one division in Istanbul. If they redistribute that to the Sea of Marmara, the Germans will just blitz through Istanbul directly. [image]local://upfiles/14086/06F20A377B1E4035B3FC131A7582E999.jpg[/image] Who gives a $hit about a SPI game and their setup and definitions? I am talking reality and not about someone's attempt to make a game to make them money. Besides, that setup is wrong. Those divisions are not static, nailed to the ground with their foot. They can and would be moved. There are railroads and other ways to move them. Did you ever hear about the Parisian taxi service? Poorly equipped divisions are still tough to dislodge on an amphibious invasion, especially when the attacker has no naval surface vessels to keep a Battle Cruiser away along with Destroyers and other vessels. Civilian smaller vessels could easily have guns mounted on them to destroy those unescorted barges. [sm=fighting0083.gif] France and Britain had also promised to help arm Turkey and Turkey was eligible for Lend Lease if the Turks wanted it. That is besides all of the equipment and supplies availible from the Soviets - especially if the Soviets are exchanging their T-26s, BT-5s and BT-7s for T-34s and KV-1/2s. Most of those Soviet aircraft destroyed on the ground did not have pilots at the airfields. The pilots were elsewhere being trained on newer aircraft which the Soviets were building to replace the older aircraft. Germany counted ground aircraft kills for their pilots and not just air-to-air kills. So this would be after Greece? At least there is a timeline for that. Turkey would have fun with the British invading Greek islands, and allowing the RAF to base in Turkey to bomb Polesti! [:D] Meanwhile, the Soviets continue to produce more T-34s, KV-1/2s, MiGs and IL-2s. [:D]

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/1/2020 9:50:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The Turkish Air Force had 500 aircraft, more later. The Luftwaffe could not destroy the RAF Fighter Command, the Turkish Air Force would last awhile. And where would the Luftwaffe be based initially? Bulgaria and Greece. The RAF was protected by the Channel. And, since there is no Barbarossa, all the air assets that would have been used for that will be available for Turkey. The Soviets lost about 2000 aircraft on week one, recall. Since the RAF would be mostly unopposed over France and Northwest Germany, the RAF would have fun! [sm=00000028.gif] [sm=Evil-210.gif] Turkey could lose Thrace and still be fairly intact. There is no Germany Navy in the area, the Italian Navy would be out numbered and the Bulgarian and Romanian navies (if they participated in this war) would not be strong enough and vulnerable to Turkish and RAF air action in the Black Sea if the Turkish Navy did not wipe those navies out if they left port. Bulgaria had a non-aggression pact with Turkey. [8\|] Bulgaria also never declared war on the Soviet Union nor the United Stated and the United Kingdom until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 2:16:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Trading DDs for barges is a win for Germany. warspite1 Well that is pretty hilarious. Trading barges is a win for Germany..... how many barges do you think the Germans have? What happpens to the follow up waves and the replacements and the supplies when those barges are sunk? No, trading barges is not a win for Germany because they are irreplaceable. Yes, it is hilarious that you would think that! How many DDs does Britain have? There are no follow up waves and replacements, because no Sea Lion will occur! Tricking the British into burning their DDs for piddling barges would be a monstrous coup! And barges are far more replaceable than DDs, even if Sea Lion was to occur!

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 2:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 What are you talking about now?? According to you, the Japs are in a pickle because of the cost of the war in China. So, your solution for them is......to go to war with the US and Britain! quote: Are we ignoring July 1944 after the failure to secure a withdrawal from China then? Is that what we are playing here, ignore the bits you don’t like? That was obviously because of the War in the Pacific. And, it was four years later. quote: Nope. Only if you ignore the situation that Japan are facing. Barbarossa was NOT a prerequisite, in real life Barbarossa meant the question - North or South - was effectively answered because it took the decision largely away. But with no Barbarossa the same options still face Japan, the same problems still face Japan, and the same solutions still face Japan. Nothing, but nothing says they can’t take the same path, and all signs and logic heads them south. Again, you have no basis for that. I have the wiki article that says the opposite.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 2:25:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe With the barges in port during the invasion they are not transporting men, equipment, and/or supplies across the Channel so that is the win for the United Kingdom. The RAF bomber command would still be bombing them so no destroyers would be needed while the barges are still being sunk. United Kingdom wins, Nazi Germany and Curtis Lemay lose. The barges are only there to sucker the British about German plans. And, bombing naval targets in port is a daylight operation. So, that would reverse the roles of the participants in the BoB. British escorts would be at the end of their range. German pilots shot down would go back to combat, British ones would go to POW camps. Trading barges for the RAF is also a good deal for Germany.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 2:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Trading DDs for barges is a win for Germany. warspite1 Well that is pretty hilarious. Trading barges is a win for Germany..... how many barges do you think the Germans have? What happpens to the follow up waves and the replacements and the supplies when those barges are sunk? No, trading barges is not a win for Germany because they are irreplaceable. Yes, it is hilarious that you would think that! How many DDs does Britain have? There are no follow up waves and replacements, because no Sea Lion will occur! Tricking the British into burning their DDs for piddling barges would be a monstrous coup! And barges are far more replaceable than DDs, even if Sea Lion was to occur! warspite1 Well that's what you get for joining in someone else's conversation. I see the premise is that DD's sail to the ports to sink empty barges. Right I will stick to our debates going forward so that I don't get the wrong end of the stick.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 2:43:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Who gives a $hit about a SPI game and their setup and definitions? It represents the opinions of professional wargame designers. People who had their opinions validated by continual purchases of their product over the course of years. No one on this board can match that. By the way, putting that thing together was fun! Brought back old memories. quote: Those divisions are not static, nailed to the ground with their foot. They can and would be moved. There are railroads and other ways to move them. Did you ever hear about the Parisian taxi service? Taxis can't tow field guns. And their static condition might also be due to their training, if they had never been trained above garrison status. The caliber of troops depends upon their training, commitment, and caliber of their officers and commanders. The Turkish army had expanded rapidly since 1938. They are a third rate power. Their divisions were probably as poorly trained and officered as they were equipped. quote: Poorly equipped divisions are still tough to dislodge on an amphibious invasion, especially when the attacker has no naval surface vessels to keep a Battle Cruiser away along with Destroyers and other vessels. Civilian smaller vessels could easily have guns mounted on them to destroy those unescorted barges. [sm=fighting0083.gif] Again, if they redeploy so that they cover the entire length of the Sea of Marmara, then they won't be as strong in front of Istanbul. The Germans will just bowl over them there. quote: France and Britain had also promised to help arm Turkey and Turkey was eligible for Lend Lease if the Turks wanted it. That is besides all of the equipment and supplies availible from the Soviets - especially if the Soviets are exchanging their T-26s, BT-5s and BT-7s for T-34s and KV-1/2s. France is now Vichy. Britain couldn't save Greece. The Soviets are going to be thinking of themselves. quote: Most of those Soviet aircraft destroyed on the ground did not have pilots at the airfields. The pilots were elsewhere being trained on newer aircraft which the Soviets were building to replace the older aircraft. Germany counted ground aircraft kills for their pilots and not just air-to-air kills. Still destroys the aircraft, though. quote: So this would be after Greece? At least there is a timeline for that. Turkey would have fun with the British invading Greek islands, and allowing the RAF to base in Turkey to bomb Polesti! [:D] They would have to fly through a lot Luftwaffe. And the British were sent fleeing after Greece. quote: Meanwhile, the Soviets continue to produce more T-34s, KV-1/2s, MiGs and IL-2s. [:D] At a peace-time rate. Meanwhile, Baku comes closer to the Barbarossa start line.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 2:48:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Since the RAF would be mostly unopposed over France and Northwest Germany, the RAF would have fun! [sm=00000028.gif] [sm=Evil-210.gif] The situation if France would be the same as historical. Only the Luftwaffe scheduled to be used in Barbarossa would be available for Turkey. quote: Turkey could lose Thrace and still be fairly intact. There is no Germany Navy in the area, the Italian Navy would be out numbered and the Bulgarian and Romanian navies (if they participated in this war) would not be strong enough and vulnerable to Turkish and RAF air action in the Black Sea if the Turkish Navy did not wipe those navies out if they left port. Again, the Luftwaffe would torch any naval forces in the Sea of Marmara. quote: Bulgaria had a non-aggression pact with Turkey. [8\|] Bulgaria also never declared war on the Soviet Union nor the United Stated and the United Kingdom until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Germany had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, too. Germany doesn't need to be in Bulgaria anyway. They can attack through Greece. Bulgaria needn't be involved, militarily.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 2:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay According to you, the Japs are in a pickle because of the cost of the war in China. So, your solution for them is......to go to war with the US and Britain! warspite1 You think I am suggesting the Japanese are in a pickle just because of the cost of the war in China? Behave yourself. If you think that then either a) this topic of conversation is above you or b) you realise you are onto a loser and are just being rather silly. The cost of the war - materially and financially - is something the Japanese can't afford long term. There is nothing controversial about that statement, its pretty obvious to anyone. BUT there is an even far bigger problem. Being in China is making the US upset - and Japan won't quit China. So......there are already embargoes in place - and these ramp up each time the Japanese do something more aggressive, but they have to either bring the war to an end (victoriously or a negotiated peace) or quit. We know what they chose and we know why they end up at war with the Commonwealth, the Dutch and the US. It's not my solution is it? It is not my suggestion, it is not my what-if, it was Japan's actual choice. What is difficult about this that you have to say what 'my' solution is or ask me what 'I' would do? quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay That was obviously because of the War in the Pacific. And, it was four years later. warspite1 Lolzer [:)] By jove I think he's got it (although he doesn't seem to understand why he's got it, or what he's actually got)!! quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Again, you have no basis for that. I have the wiki article that says the opposite. warspite1 Allow me to explain. No. You. Don't. Now for the billionth time, you have a Wiki article that tells you that Barbarossa meant that the argument - North or South - was effectively settled. What you don't have BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, is a Wiki article that tells you what would happen if there was no Barbarossa. That is what we use our knowledge and our understanding of the situation Japan faced for. That is the very essence of a counter-factual. You metaphorically clinging to your Wiki article like a passenger of the Titanic who has just seen the last lifeboat depart, isn't going to help you.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 3:17:07 PM)
Might as well do Spain, too: [image]local://upfiles/14086/958C959EADA1407789A2C5B989F413DB.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 3:35:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe With the barges in port during the invasion they are not transporting men, equipment, and/or supplies across the Channel so that is the win for the United Kingdom. The RAF bomber command would still be bombing them so no destroyers would be needed while the barges are still being sunk. United Kingdom wins, Nazi Germany and Curtis Lemay lose. The barges are only there to sucker the British about German plans. And, bombing naval targets in port is a daylight operation. So, that would reverse the roles of the participants in the BoB. British escorts would be at the end of their range. German pilots shot down would go back to combat, British ones would go to POW camps. Trading barges for the RAF is also a good deal for Germany. The RAF bombed at night. quote: As September progressed, so the level of Bomber Command's attack increased. On the night of 13-14, the whole of the available bomber force was dispatched against the barges. The following night the number of sorties rose to 176 and again to 192 on 17 September. The operations enjoyed greater success than those aimed at Bomber Command's other targets. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-bomber-command-helped-win-the-battle-of-britain

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 3:47:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay And, bombing naval targets in port is a daylight operation. So, that would reverse the roles of the participants in the BoB. British escorts would be at the end of their range. German pilots shot down would go back to combat, British ones would go to POW camps. Trading barges for the RAF is also a good deal for Germany. warspite1 ...and yet another factually incorrect statement..... Is that why the youngest VC in WWII won his medal during a night time raid? IIRC I believe that 10% of the barges were destroyed by bomber command. Daylight raids were quickly stopped as losses were too high. When Bomber Command ramped up attacks against invasion shipping, night time attacks were adopted http://www.vconline.org.uk/john-hannah-vc/4586893024

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 4:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Who gives a $hit about a SPI game and their setup and definitions? It represents the opinions of professional wargame designers. People who had their opinions validated by continual purchases of their product over the course of years. No one on this board can match that. By the way, putting that thing together was fun! Brought back old memories. quote: Those divisions are not static, nailed to the ground with their foot. They can and would be moved. There are railroads and other ways to move them. Did you ever hear about the Parisian taxi service? Taxis can't tow field guns. And their static condition might also be due to their training, if they had never been trained above garrison status. The caliber of troops depends upon their training, commitment, and caliber of their officers and commanders. The Turkish army had expanded rapidly since 1938. They are a third rate power. Their divisions were probably as poorly trained and officered as they were equipped. quote: Poorly equipped divisions are still tough to dislodge on an amphibious invasion, especially when the attacker has no naval surface vessels to keep a Battle Cruiser away along with Destroyers and other vessels. Civilian smaller vessels could easily have guns mounted on them to destroy those unescorted barges. [sm=fighting0083.gif] Again, if they redeploy so that they cover the entire length of the Sea of Marmara, then they won't be as strong in front of Istanbul. The Germans will just bowl over them there. quote: France and Britain had also promised to help arm Turkey and Turkey was eligible for Lend Lease if the Turks wanted it. That is besides all of the equipment and supplies availible from the Soviets - especially if the Soviets are exchanging their T-26s, BT-5s and BT-7s for T-34s and KV-1/2s. France is now Vichy. Britain couldn't save Greece. The Soviets are going to be thinking of themselves. quote: Most of those Soviet aircraft destroyed on the ground did not have pilots at the airfields. The pilots were elsewhere being trained on newer aircraft which the Soviets were building to replace the older aircraft. Germany counted ground aircraft kills for their pilots and not just air-to-air kills. Still destroys the aircraft, though. quote: So this would be after Greece? At least there is a timeline for that. Turkey would have fun with the British invading Greek islands, and allowing the RAF to base in Turkey to bomb Polesti! [:D] They would have to fly through a lot Luftwaffe. And the British were sent fleeing after Greece. quote: Meanwhile, the Soviets continue to produce more T-34s, KV-1/2s, MiGs and IL-2s. [:D] At a peace-time rate. Meanwhile, Baku comes closer to the Barbarossa start line. You keep referring to a game designed to make money as reality. So does the game of Life describe your life? Has the world developed like it has in Risk? Did you enjoy eating all of those colours and candy in Candyland? The trucks that the Turkish people had could tow guns and haul supplies. The only things that they Germans could initially haul across the Sea of Marmora would be infantry and very light artillery. The Turks could crush that easily. The Soviets had sold equipment to Turkey and they would not be blind to the risk of a Nazi German occupied Turkey. Although it would be very difficult for any German Armee to force its way through the mountains into the Soviet Union. The British would not be stupid either, they would send equipment and probably military units as well. Why, even one of Kamal's daughters would probably fly to attack the Germans! Not to mention that the Turks would also help supply Greek partisans. You have the Luftwaffe everywhere and doing everything. It could not and would not be able to do everything that you want it to do, all at the same time. Besides, they are marching while carrying signs in France to try and scare the British. The destroyed Soviet aircraft were obsolete types like the I-15 and the I-16. Much better types were being trained on. Soviet peace time production was rather high and undisturbed by any enemy activity, it would continue to produce lots of equipment. Any equipment sent to Turkey to kill Germans would weaken the Germans and thus make the Soviet position that much better. The Soviet T-34 and the KV-1 each had less than 200 produced in 1940. But the production rate was a lot higher the in the next two years. The T-34 had over 3,000 produced in 1941 and over 12,000 in 1942. While the KV-1 did not have that high of a production rate, still thousands were produced. Every one of those tanks could replace a lighter tank which could then have been transferred to the Turks. The US would also have offered weapons under Lend-Lease. If Vichy France wanted to pretend to be France and not a German puppet, they may have assisted. If they proved to be a German puppet, Syria would have been occupied sooner and Vichy France would have lost the imports from the US.

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 4:00:52 PM)
As a long time SPI and DG War In Europe (WIE) (and the CWIE2 game) player of WIE Bob (aka Curtis Lemay) is not giving WIE it's proper perspective. In that game there is a Political game as well and Bob (I don't know why he uses a dead general's name instead of his own, but then again I am sure warspite's mother did not name him after a battle ship, but then again...and I don't think Ranger Joe's mom called him Ranger, but then again...,lol) is mis representing WIE. Anyway, in SPI the Political game has Political Points are awarded based on Axis and Allied actions, which can be either positive or negative and then depending on where the Political level is certain (predetermined things, like Italy activating or Bulgaria joining the Axis, or the US entering early) take place. So what Bob is not showing is in a real game of WIE its very very risky for the Germans to go after Spain (and as pointed out by warspite) and it makes not sense, since if you can do enough they will activate on the Axis side, but here is the rub that Bob has not stated (and others have) the Germans only have so much Production points to purchase new units (i.e., infantry divisions and static divisions) and you have to have the correct number of Garrisons in place or partisans (which can turn out to be quite nasty) will pop up. Poland and France have to be garrisoned. Poland requires 15 divisions (as does Turkey), and Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark each require 2 divisions each, Greece and Portugal each require 5 divisions, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland (which is impassible) each require 10 divisions and lastly, France, Spain and the UK require 30 divisions each in that game. So just taking WIE with the proposed Med option, with the Axis accepting Vichy France, they would already have to keep 56 divisions (France, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway) in Garrison. They start the 1940 CG with 120 Infantry divisions (in Germany and 15 in Garrison in Poland), 10 Pz Divisions, 6 Mech Divisions, 1 Cav division and 1 security division. Usually in WIE a somewhat seasoned player can take France out in 6-10 turns, I think the average is about 8 to 10 turns. The best I know of is myself, I took out France (using various new rules) in 4 turns (in CWIE2). That leaves 64 German divisions to attack Spain, but that does not count the Political cost of doing so, nor the preparation needed for Russia NOR the losses incurred taking out France (usualy 10 to 20 Divisions flipped). From my memory, I can't recall anyone going for Spain, if they did they forgo Russia in 41 and risk Russia attacking in 42. I have seen and heard more going for Sealion and that in that game is very costly (heck Norway is a giant pain in the buttocks in that game to take in one turn, if the Germans don't the British and French send 1-4 divisions into Norway to cause havoc. So Bob is not representing WIE very well, most likely since he has not even played it in decades. I have played it many times and in the CWIE2 version I was a play tester and helped with the scenario design (mainly to get the SPI rules in place over the DG ones). So warspite and Ranger Joe have both made many valid points. Lastly, anyone staking any validation or historical reference in Wikipedia is a fool. Anyone can create an account, sign into Wikipedia and edit the content to their hearts content, how valid is that data now? Worthless.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 4:05:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Since the RAF would be mostly unopposed over France and Northwest Germany, the RAF would have fun! [sm=00000028.gif] [sm=Evil-210.gif] The situation if France would be the same as historical. Only the Luftwaffe scheduled to be used in Barbarossa would be available for Turkey. quote: Turkey could lose Thrace and still be fairly intact. There is no Germany Navy in the area, the Italian Navy would be out numbered and the Bulgarian and Romanian navies (if they participated in this war) would not be strong enough and vulnerable to Turkish and RAF air action in the Black Sea if the Turkish Navy did not wipe those navies out if they left port. Again, the Luftwaffe would torch any naval forces in the Sea of Marmara. quote: Bulgaria had a non-aggression pact with Turkey. [8\|] Bulgaria also never declared war on the Soviet Union nor the United States and the United Kingdom until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Germany had a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, too. Germany doesn't need to be in Bulgaria anyway. They can attack through Greece. Bulgaria needn't be involved, militarily. You can't have the same Luftwaffe units in Northern France and Spain at the same time. You can't have the same Luftwaffe units in Northern France and fighting over Turkey at the same time. The aircraft did not have the range. If the Germans only attacked through Greece, that makes a smaller front and much easier to defend. Any distruption to the road and rail networks would severely impact the front. Maybe even one blown bridge could slow the flow of supplies to the front so any advance would stop.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 4:26:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zovs As a long time SPI and DG War In Europe (WIE) (and the CWIE2 game) player of WIE Bob (aka Curtis Lemay) is not giving WIE it's proper perspective. In that game there is a Political game as well and Bob (I don't know why he uses a dead general's name instead of his own, but then again I am sure warspite's mother did not name him after a battle ship, but then again...and I don't think Ranger Joe's mom called him Ranger, but then again...,lol) is mis representing WIE. Anyway, in SPI the Political game has Political Points are awarded based on Axis and Allied actions, which can be either positive or negative and then depending on where the Political level is certain (predetermined things, like Italy activating or Bulgaria joining the Axis, or the US entering early) take place. So what Bob is not showing is in a real game of WIE its very very risky for the Germans to go after Spain (and as pointed out by warspite) and it makes not sense, since if you can do enough they will activate on the Axis side, but here is the rub that Bob has not stated (and others have) the Germans only have so much Production points to purchase new units (i.e., infantry divisions and static divisions) and you have to have the correct number of Garrisons in place or partisans (which can turn out to be quite nasty) will pop up. Poland and France have to be garrisoned. Poland requires 15 divisions (as does Turkey), and Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark each require 2 divisions each, Greece and Portugal each require 5 divisions, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland (which is impassible) each require 10 divisions and lastly, France, Spain and the UK require 30 divisions each in that game. So just taking WIE with the proposed Med option, with the Axis accepting Vichy France, they would already have to keep 56 divisions (France, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway) in Garrison. They start the 1940 CG with 120 Infantry divisions (in Germany and 15 in Garrison in Poland), 10 Pz Divisions, 6 Mech Divisions, 1 Cav division and 1 security division. Usually in WIE a somewhat seasoned player can take France out in 6-10 turns, I think the average is about 8 to 10 turns. The best I know of is myself, I took out France (using various new rules) in 4 turns (in CWIE2). That leaves 64 German divisions to attack Spain, but that does not count the Political cost of doing so, nor the preparation needed for Russia NOR the losses incurred taking out France (usualy 10 to 20 Divisions flipped). From my memory, I can't recall anyone going for Spain, if they did they forgo Russia in 41 and risk Russia attacking in 42. I have seen and heard more going for Sealion and that in that game is very costly (heck Norway is a giant pain in the buttocks in that game to take in one turn, if the Germans don't the British and French send 1-4 divisions into Norway to cause havoc. So Bob is not representing WIE very well, most likely since he has not even played it in decades. I have played it many times and in the CWIE2 version I was a play tester and helped with the scenario design (mainly to get the SPI rules in place over the DG ones). So warspite and Ranger Joe have both made many valid points. Lastly, anyone staking any validation or historical reference in Wikipedia is a fool. Anyone can create an account, sign into Wikipedia and edit the content to their hearts content, how valid is that data now? Worthless. warspite1 Thanks for this helpful contribution Zovs. I wonder why there was no mention of the political? [;)] What I find so strange is that he is prepared to accept the rules of a game as being some sort of fact, and what would definitely happen. The obvious example is Rule 13b (okay it may not be 13b [:D]). The fact that the game states Spain surrender on taking the capital means it must happen that way in any counter-factual. He seems to fail to understand that the rule could have been written that way for a number of reasons: e.g. counter limitations as some Spaniards fought on while others surrendered, or it was just too complicated to incorporate into the game mechanics etc etc. Instead it should be for us as war gamers and military enthusiasts to come up with our take on the situation and put across possible outcomes based on all the pertinent factors we can think of. I am particularly interested to hear you mention the number of divisions required for occupation. That accords similarly to Yugoslavia/Greece in real life. Presumably in the game the Axis can't just pile Spain full of Italian divisions? I agree with you about Wiki, although I don't actually have any problem with the sentence he is quoting. The sentence is fine, the problem is that he is using that sentence as some sort of proof for what Japan would have done without a Barbarossa and that is simply not the case. By the way you are right, mummy warspite didn't name me after the greatest warship ever (FACT) [;)], I chose that for obvious reasons. By the way why Zovs as an avatar if I may ask.

Zorch -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 5:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 By the way you are right, mummy warspite didn't name me after the greatest warship ever (FACT) [;)], I chose that for obvious reasons. If you had been a girl, would you be Queen Elizabeth? PS. I'm curious as to whether Curtis has ever, ever, admitted he was wrong about anything on this forum.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 5:08:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The British would not be stupid either, they would send equipment and probably military units as well. warspite1 I think you need to be mindful of when this is and what has happened previously (in Spain, the UK, North Africa etc). That is why I personally think this has to be done chronologically. What Britain has to send Turkey is very dependent on what happened in 1940/early 1941. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The Soviets had sold equipment to Turkey and they would not be blind to the risk of a Nazi German occupied Turkey. warspite1 Indeed and this is one of (or at least should be one of) the big debating points. What would Stalin's reaction to a move on Turkey - and thus the Straits - have been. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe You have the Luftwaffe everywhere and doing everything. It could not and would not be able to do everything that you want it to do, all at the same time. Besides, they are marching while carrying signs in France to try and scare the British. warspite1 But if I've understood this he's said they would not be acting simultaneously. However, as per your last point, until he gives us a clue as to what the Luftwaffe are doing in the summer of 1940, your last point is about as valid as any. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The US would also have offered weapons under Lend-Lease. warspite1 Interested to see the timing here to understand what could the US provide and how long it would take to reach Turkey

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 5:12:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 By the way you are right, mummy warspite didn't name me after the greatest warship ever (FACT) [;)], I chose that for obvious reasons. If you had been a girl, would you be Queen Elizabeth? warspite1 No, I would have been warspite1 - the name is gender neutral - and remember the actual ship was female (as all ships are). HMS Warspite was a woman of a certain age that, by 1939, had been around the block a few times. She was a lady (when she needed to be) and 100% woman. She knew where it was at.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 5:30:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe If the Germans only attacked through Greece, that makes a smaller front and much easier to defend. warspite1 Well according to the map, there is no rail line running through those Greek hills/mountains? and so Curtis Lemay's suggestion that the attack could come only via Greece is more than a little shaky. But even if Bulgaria was used, again what sort of rail 'network' is there to service troops and supplies heading to Turkey from Germany? Here too the relationship between Bulgaria and the USSR is crucial. We know the Bulgarians were sufficiently scared of the USSR that they refused to participate in Barbarossa. What would Stalin be whispering in the Bulgarians ear about their take on the Bulgarians providing troops and supplies for an attack on Turkey? Again, not by any means straightforward as he may wish to believe. But again I stress this shouldn't be tackled until we've dealt with Spain.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 6:11:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Zovs As a long time SPI and DG War In Europe (WIE) (and the CWIE2 game) player of WIE Bob (aka Curtis Lemay) is not giving WIE it's proper perspective. In that game there is a Political game as well and Bob (I don't know why he uses a dead general's name instead of his own, but then again I am sure warspite's mother did not name him after a battle ship, but then again...and I don't think Ranger Joe's mom called him Ranger, but then again...,lol) is mis representing WIE. Anyway, in SPI the Political game has Political Points are awarded based on Axis and Allied actions, which can be either positive or negative and then depending on where the Political level is certain (predetermined things, like Italy activating or Bulgaria joining the Axis, or the US entering early) take place. So what Bob is not showing is in a real game of WIE its very very risky for the Germans to go after Spain (and as pointed out by warspite) and it makes not sense, since if you can do enough they will activate on the Axis side, but here is the rub that Bob has not stated (and others have) the Germans only have so much Production points to purchase new units (i.e., infantry divisions and static divisions) and you have to have the correct number of Garrisons in place or partisans (which can turn out to be quite nasty) will pop up. Poland and France have to be garrisoned. Poland requires 15 divisions (as does Turkey), and Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark each require 2 divisions each, Greece and Portugal each require 5 divisions, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland (which is impassible) each require 10 divisions and lastly, France, Spain and the UK require 30 divisions each in that game. So just taking WIE with the proposed Med option, with the Axis accepting Vichy France, they would already have to keep 56 divisions (France, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway) in Garrison. They start the 1940 CG with 120 Infantry divisions (in Germany and 15 in Garrison in Poland), 10 Pz Divisions, 6 Mech Divisions, 1 Cav division and 1 security division. Usually in WIE a somewhat seasoned player can take France out in 6-10 turns, I think the average is about 8 to 10 turns. The best I know of is myself, I took out France (using various new rules) in 4 turns (in CWIE2). That leaves 64 German divisions to attack Spain, but that does not count the Political cost of doing so, nor the preparation needed for Russia NOR the losses incurred taking out France (usualy 10 to 20 Divisions flipped). From my memory, I can't recall anyone going for Spain, if they did they forgo Russia in 41 and risk Russia attacking in 42. I have seen and heard more going for Sealion and that in that game is very costly (heck Norway is a giant pain in the buttocks in that game to take in one turn, if the Germans don't the British and French send 1-4 divisions into Norway to cause havoc. So Bob is not representing WIE very well, most likely since he has not even played it in decades. I have played it many times and in the CWIE2 version I was a play tester and helped with the scenario design (mainly to get the SPI rules in place over the DG ones). So warspite and Ranger Joe have both made many valid points. Lastly, anyone staking any validation or historical reference in Wikipedia is a fool. Anyone can create an account, sign into Wikipedia and edit the content to their hearts content, how valid is that data now? Worthless. warspite1 Thanks for this helpful contribution Zovs. I wonder why there was no mention of the political? [;)] What I find so strange is that he is prepared to accept the rules of a game as being some sort of fact, and what would definitely happen. The obvious example is Rule 13b (okay it may not be 13b [:D]). The fact that the game states Spain surrender on taking the capital means it must happen that way in any counter-factual. He seems to fail to understand that the rule could have been written that way for a number of reasons: e.g. counter limitations as some Spaniards fought on while others surrendered, or it was just too complicated to incorporate into the game mechanics etc etc. Instead it should be for us as war gamers and military enthusiasts to come up with our take on the situation and put across possible outcomes based on all the pertinent factors we can think of. I am particularly interested to hear you mention the number of divisions required for occupation. That accords similarly to Yugoslavia/Greece in real life. Presumably in the game the Axis can't just pile Spain full of Italian divisions? I agree with you about Wiki, although I don't actually have any problem with the sentence he is quoting. The sentence is fine, the problem is that he is using that sentence as some sort of proof for what Japan would have done without a Barbarossa and that is simply not the case. By the way you are right, mummy warspite didn't name me after the greatest warship ever (FACT) [;)], I chose that for obvious reasons. By the way why Zovs as an avatar if I may ask. +1 For me, Wiki is a starting point. I may not go farther for some subjects but for others I don't even go there. Why would Little Bennie even want to attack Spain and remove Franco? Italy helped Franco in Spain more than Germany did. Nobody named me a Ranger, I am one. The greatest warship was that little PT Boat that Greyjoy used to sink the Yamato with just one old torpedo. [&o]

Aurelian -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 6:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 By the way you are right, mummy warspite didn't name me after the greatest warship ever (FACT) [;)], I chose that for obvious reasons. If you had been a girl, would you be Queen Elizabeth? warspite1 No, I would have been warspite1 - the name is gender neutral - and remember the actual ship was female (as all ships are). HMS Warspite was a woman of a certain age that, by 1939, had been around the block a few times. She was a lady (when she needed to be) and 100% woman. She knew where it was at. Well, the Bismark's only captain preferred to call his ship a he. Because he was of the opinion that such a powerful ship could only be a he.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 6:36:12 PM)
Just for comparison, here's the set up for France 1940. German forces are 10 Panzer Divisions (strength 10 each), 6 Mech Divisions (strength 8 each), 96 Infantry Divisions (strength 6 each), 2 Panzer Brigades (strength 3 each), and 3 Para Regiments (strength 2 each). (Total strength 736). Contrast the defense they face here (lasted 6 weeks) vs. the defense they face from Spain and Turkey. [image]local://upfiles/14086/4140B2EF3B534990AF24B5DFF6CC7160.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 7:20:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Just for comparison, here's the set up for France 1940. German forces are 10 Panzer Divisions (strength 10 each), 6 Mech Divisions (strength 8 each), 96 Infantry Divisions (strength 6 each), 2 Panzer Brigades (strength 3 each), and 3 Para Regiments (strength 2 each). (Total strength 736). Contrast the defense they face here (lasted 6 weeks) vs. the defense they face from Spain and Turkey. [image]local://upfiles/14086/4140B2EF3B534990AF24B5DFF6CC7160.jpg[/image] Contrast the terrain. Have you ever walked cross country, much less with equipment? Especially with hills, mountains, and waterways to cross? Swamps and low ground? In all sorts of weather? Carrying a heavy load? If so, how much have you done? Day after day, no deciding "Gee, I am a little tuckered out today, I will take it easy!" Or even manual labor with lots of heavy lifting for hours at a time? Have you ever driven cross country where the roads are bad or even where there are no roads? Have you ever maintained vehicles that have done so?

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 7:27:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay Just for comparison, here's the set up for France 1940. German forces are 10 Panzer Divisions (strength 10 each), 6 Mech Divisions (strength 8 each), 96 Infantry Divisions (strength 6 each), 2 Panzer Brigades (strength 3 each), and 3 Para Regiments (strength 2 each). (Total strength 736). Contrast the defense they face here (lasted 6 weeks) vs. the defense they face from Spain and Turkey. warspite1 But what are you saying? The time taken to defeat a nation is dependent upon the number of divisions? That is nonsense. The defeat of France should never have happened (certainly not in the time it did if at all) based on the size of each force and the equipment each had. The result was caused by many things - and no matter how much one should give plaudits to the Germans - the fact was they were colossally lucky. Imagine what would have happened with no Breda Variant? Imagine if Guderian had remained sacked, imagine if Loerzer had not ignored von Kleist etc. etc. You look at things too simplistically. I have not said at anytime that the Spanish won't be defeated. They will. But how quickly? Well we need to understand far more than you are prepared to provide.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 7:34:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 By the way you are right, mummy warspite didn't name me after the greatest warship ever (FACT) [;)], I chose that for obvious reasons. If you had been a girl, would you be Queen Elizabeth? warspite1 No, I would have been warspite1 - the name is gender neutral - and remember the actual ship was female (as all ships are). HMS Warspite was a woman of a certain age that, by 1939, had been around the block a few times. She was a lady (when she needed to be) and 100% woman. She knew where it was at. Well, the Bismark's only captain preferred to call his ship a he. Because he was of the opinion that such a powerful ship could only be a he. warspite1 Well maybe Lutjens was a misogynist, maybe he just believed that men were stronger. But at end of the day, I would have preferred to be fighting Bismarck than the Grand Old Lady. There would only be one winner if those two faced off - and it wasn't Bismarck [:)]. ... and I'm not even biased [;)]

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 7:36:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Thanks for this helpful contribution Zovs. I wonder why there was no mention of the political? [;)] Your welcome, I have been following this all along, I am interested in the idea of a Med strategy also, but in all my 'readings' of historical accounts (which you kind of need to do for counter factual stuff) and in particular of my war gaming 'experiments' it always seems (with great games) that in order to do so, you have to forgo Russia in 41. Which leads to your all discussion here (at least some of it, lol). I think my two biggest games that helped in this area are Third Reich (and Advanced Third Reich) from AH and SPI's WIE. I have always been more interested in operational and tactical level games. But those two fit the bill for me. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 What I find so strange is that he is prepared to accept the rules of a game as being some sort of fact, and what would definitely happen. The obvious example is Rule 13b (okay it may not be 13b [:D]). The fact that the game states Spain surrender on taking the capital means it must happen that way in any counter-factual. Well to give Bob Cross (aka Curtis) the benefit of the doubt I think he is only thinking like a board game, but it was obvious to me from the get go that this was a 'discussion' or mental game if you will. Perhaps he cant fathom the difference (based on his bias to only quote some game designers and Wikipedia as gospel truth). quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 He seems to fail to understand that the rule could have been written that way for a number of reasons: e.g. counter limitations as some Spaniards fought on while others surrendered, or it was just too complicated to incorporate into the game mechanics etc etc. Spot on, you hit the nail on the head here. I have been playing board war games since 1976 and computer war games since 1994, and here in 2020 with board games I can easily understand why James F. Dunnigan (the creator, owner of SPI and one of the best innovators (or thief, take your pick) of war game design of all time), did or wrote what he wrote 40+ years ago, you have to remember when it came time to publish war games back then in general most games came with 200 counters on one sheet, and that cost money, so if you created a game that need 310 unit counters you had to create two sheets, likewise most maps from that era (and even in today's board war gaming world) you'd have to print two maps, all that costs money. Also, if you ever read though all the various designer notes from the 70's and 80's, you get even more insight in how they designed games and you have have pointed that out (I think it was the SPI game NATO that said if you wanted thermal nuclear weapons then pour some lighter fluid on the game map and light it up with a match, game over, or some such), anyway your right, there were back then (and even today in computer war games) limitations and you just had to make a cut or a rule in order to ship it out. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Instead it should be for us as war gamers and military enthusiasts to come up with our take on the situation and put across possible outcomes based on all the pertinent factors we can think of. Wholly agree and the way I have explored that avenue was via playing war games out and trying different things (as previously mentioned). Of course when you do that, you still have to play by the rules of whatever game that is, but when you are having a discussion those same rules do not apply. It's a discussion for Pete's sake. Now theoretically one could use a war game or a book as a basis, but of others can point out some flaw or other way of thinking then that is fine to, its all part of the discussion. If everyone is being reasonable and hospitable. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I am particularly interested to hear you mention the number of divisions required for occupation. That accords similarly to Yugoslavia/Greece in real life. Presumably in the game the Axis can't just pile Spain full of Italian divisions? One of the drawbacks (or positives, see later), is that yes the Axis player could if he wanted to use Italian divisions in garrison in Spain, but the negative side effect is the Italians in that game are not very strong at all, and the Allies could with British troops drive them out of Spain. More sensible Axis players 'husband' their Italian units. You have to understand the basic German Infantry division is rated as a 6-5 (attack/defense - movement) and the basic Italian is a 2-4. The basic British infantry unit is a 8-10. Also what makes WIE unique (in my view) is that each country uses a specific CRT to attack on, in the early part of the war the Germans are on one of the best CRT's, and towards 44 and 45 the Allies get the more favorable CRTs for attacking. So that game is a little unrealistic in that regards. You have to garrison the country but the 'rules' don't say it has to be a certain nationality. Again, any Axis player worth his salt will not but a bunch of 2-4 in Spain, it's to risky because the Western Allies can hit Spain from 3 sides. Once the Allies get a foothold on the continent it's extremely hard for the Axis to throw them out. That is for any Allied player worth his salt (i.e. not a small raid, but packing 6 or 8, 8-10's in two hexes on a port for example). quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I agree with you about Wiki, although I don't actually have any problem with the sentence he is quoting. The sentence is fine, the problem is that he is using that sentence as some sort of proof for what Japan would have done without a Barbarossa and that is simply not the case. Agree with you on the Japanese, and also your comments on each national leader. Whether on the Allied or Axis side each had their own agendas and goals. From what I recall Stalin was just plain paranoid about the East, with all the border wars in 37-39 with Japan. I also think that Nationally Japan would not or could not loose face in China. So I agree that with the oil embargoes and other things they would have attack, well they did. lol quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 By the way you are right, mummy warspite didn't name me after the greatest warship ever (FACT) [;)], I chose that for obvious reasons. By the way why Zovs as an avatar if I may ask. My avatar is from one of my most favorite war games and is a play on my ancestors. The game in question is Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) and the counter in particular is a Russian (Lend Lease) M4A2(76)W (that is the ASL terminology). My Father immigrated from Russia in the 1950s and my mother was born here in the states, and I just thought it was a cool idea to use that counter to represent my family heritage and my favorite board war game. Thanks for asking :D

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/2/2020 7:46:07 PM)
Again Bob is selling the game too short and he is not understanding how WIE actually works (btw my numbers are correct for the 1940 Campaign game, his numbers is only for the 1940 Scenario which is only against France). If I had the time I'd let Bob take the Germans and let him see how hard it is to go for Spain (not to mention how unwise it is). It's much better to drive deep into Russia and NA in the hopes of getting Spain to join your side and then let Spain garrison Spain when the Brits and US forces start to get ready to hit the beach. Seriously, if any Axis player went into to Spain I'd be jumping for joy as the W.Allies and or Soviet player, devising my '42 attack into Poland and going for Berlin by '43. The only player that I think that may be able to pull that off was Steve whom I shared many many games with and he was a wily Englishman who always gave me grief as the W.Allies. Sadly my good friend passed away in '17. I know of 4 top notch Axis players and only Steve would have been bold enough to take out Spain, but I bet you this, if Spain was in his plan, he would have taken Norway, Low countries, France and England. If that happened, the Soviets would be in doo doo in that game.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8574219