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 (9/10/2020 4:41:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UP844 1) The British ground forces were not limited to those evacuated from Dunkirk. warspite1 Correct. But whichever way you slice it, there was a distinct lack of heavy weapons. quote: ORIGINAL: UP844 2) As for RAF pilots, they sunk approximately half the merchant ships sunk on the Italy to Libya/Tunisia routes in 1940-43. warspite1 I'd like to see a source for that. That figure is way too high. Unless the Tunisian Campaign skews things, but 1940-42 sorry but no. quote: ORIGINAL: UP844 Perhaps they would have sunk more if they had dive bombers. I dare think barges would have been far easier targets than merchant vessels. warspite1 The British had dive bombers. Old, obsolete crappy dive-bombers, but dive bombers nonetheless. Indeed the Skuas of 800 and 803 Squadrons sunk the Konigsberg - the first ship sunk by dive bombers and indeed the first warship sunk by air attack. Yes, very closely packed, low lying (any big wave would swamp them), slow moving barges being towed, would have been juicy targets for MTB, fighter straffing, bombers, destroyers etc. quote: ORIGINAL: UP844 3) Even though the Germans managed to establish a beachead in Kent, any air support would have to deal with an intact RAF (forget those Stukas). warspite1 Quite. Although the RAF seems to have been forgotten by some people.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 5:56:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Great, my initial response timed out. Someone asked for options, so here we go again: quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe If Germany would have taken out the BEF at Dunkirk with the Panzers, warspite1 ....or if Gamelin hadn't gone for the Breda Variant or Loerzer listened to von Kleist or Guderian remained sacked or many of the German panzer commanders not disobeyed orders [:)]..... POINT 1 Points answered below All other things the same except the German panzers and the rest of the army at Dunkirk continues to advance. Then, some armour - maybe even a panzer division - refits. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The paratroopers in transports form up like a bomber force attacking England warspite1 How many Ju-52 did the Germans lose in Holland, Belgium and France? I'd be interested to know how many they had left for any such major operation, where they would be needed for all sorts of tasks including supply. Let's be clear - no where near enough. According to Schenk, there were enough for the 7th FliegerDivision but none to spare (and insufficient gliders anyway) to allow the 22nd Air Landing to be used. So enough for the 7th but that is without all these other tasks they are being assigned. Holland and Belgium - even with limited air defence - also shows just how vulnerable these precious aircraft were. 50% were lost in Holland alone.... POINT 2 The Ju-90 could carry 40 passengers, not many built only about 18 or so but some were still around. It had a door for vehicles and heavy cargo. Some 276 FW Condors built, maybe not all yet, but they could carry 26 passengers. So, those two aircraft should at least be able to carry half that many paratroopers - maybe more since they would not need to have that much fuel. The German glider could carry 9 men and 270 kg or 600 lbs of equipment. It could do a 80 degree dive, land, and stop within 60 meters. Or it could carry 1200 kgs or 2600 pounds of cargo. They are reusable. This could be towed by a Me-109 or a Ju-87. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe behind a real bomber force hitting the radar installations warspite1 But that re-writes history and assumes the Germans understood radar and that they couldn't hit the towers once and that was it. Let's be clear. They didn't. And Radar remained operational. POINT 3 They understood radar and had some of their own although not as good. But keep attacking the sites, even use gliders to land troops to destroy them. Get back to the glider, load the air brake or cut the cords, send up a balloon if need be to have an aircraft grab the tow rope and take off. That is, if there was no suitable emergency landing and take off strip nearby. Just make a gap in the radar coverage so the British don't see what is forming up over France and when. The the British would have to rely on ground observers or air craft in flight to see the Luftwaffe aircraft - any aircraft could then be shot down as well. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe then a quick paradrop to capture at least one airfield. warspite1 More paras and more Ju-52....wow. Given that the Germans aren't going to put radar out, what are the RAF doing at this point? POINT 4 The RAF is reacting. If the radar is put out as mentioned above, then the RAF will have to have a standing CAP which can be targeted a well. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe with a few barges loaded and coming across the channel to grab some beach front property. warspite1 When do these barges - moving at circa 3 knots - have to leave port to make it to this beach front property? Isn't that a kind of long range warning sign right there? POINT 5 Not if they set out at night. If they practice loading, shifting the barges, then unloading, it might lull the British. Then, one night, the barges start across landing tanks, artillery, other vehicles, more men, and supplies. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The air base would have fuel, supplies, and ground personnel for Luftwaffe planes that need help but they don't need to be based there, just stage them from France and top off the fighters fuel cells. This would effectively enhance their range, provide more time over the target, avoid the Channel radars, and hopefully save air crews from capture from aircraft that would otherwise be lost over the Channel. The ground troops would consolidate their positions and enhance them. They would move out and try to get at least one airbase away from the coast so it would not be under Naval bombardment. More troops, supplies, and equipment would be flown in to increase their lodgment. If necessary, Luftwaffe bombers could also bring in supplies or just paradrop them although they might be needed as flying artillery. warspite1 Sorry where have all these troops come from? Not to mention the fuel and supplies and ground personnel? POINT 6 These would be the initial landing troops. The distance is not all that far and the Ju-52s could make more than one trip per day. Paratroopers could also drop out of the bomb bay of bombers, which could also drop supplies and equipment. With an air field in possession, it gets even easier and more can be landed and offloaded since no parachutes would be needed. Any trucks, cars, tractors, horses with wagons or carts captured would be used by the Germans. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe With mines laid in a corridor in the Channel with U-boats and E-boats, that could hamper the RN a little bit. warspite1 Do the Royal Navy have any say in all this?... or Bomber Command? POINT 7 Yes, they do. But most of the Royal Navy is not in the area or it would be bombed. Bomber command would try and interfere but they would run into Me-109s and Me-110s. Those could ruin a bombers whole day. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Especially if the Kriegsmarine staged a breakout attempt with some heavy surface raiders to distract the Royal Navy. warspite1 Lolzer. After Norway, which heavy surface raiders are these exactly? Have you seen what the Germans had intact and undamaged in June/July/August 1940? POINT 8 Temporary repairs could be made, then the ships could sail and do so in order to be seen. The Royal Navy may not know the extent of the damage and would have to react accordingly. So would Coastal Command. Hopefully, the North Atlantic and Arctic Ocean weather patterns would help hide the fact that the Kriegsmarine is not there. The Royal Navy could also sail into freshly laid minefields with U-boats patrolling. The U-boats then go south to the Channel area. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe If Little Bennie wanted in, Italy should have consulted with Germany and arranged plans for Gibralter, Malta, and the Suez/Port Said. warspite1 I'd love to have seen this. Firstly the British allow any old unidentified merchant vessel into these ports? And allow any old unidentified ship into the canal itself? POINT 9 Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet. These could either appear to be normal troop movements to/from East Africa or a civilian passenger liner stopping at The Rock. Spanish dock workers could either be co-opted or even some Italians pretending to be Spanish could have checked out the defenses at The Rock. How many troops get ashore, what equipment can they possibly have, and how do they get re-supplied? What are the British troops doing in the meantime? For the Rock, either be ashore as tourists who pick up some stashed weapons deposited there by Spaniards or Italians pretending to be Spaniards or troops debarking from passenger liners in uniforms with weapons. Do so through the cargo hatch so they would not be seen on deck. The defenses would be lightly manned most likely. For the Suez, it could simply be a ship leaving mines behind until it sinks in the Canal to block it. That could render it unusable for a few days. The Royal Navy would not be able to reinforce or retreat easily until the Canal was cleared unless it decided to run the gauntlet of the Central Med. Which of these three operations is going to get any Regia Marina support? This is the RM without the Littorios and the two Andrea Dorias just coming back into service. First and foremost would be Malta where there was already a plan: quote: Invasion plan DG10/42 Italian battleship Giulio Cesare firing during the Battle of Calabria, on 9 July 1940 In 1938 Mussolini had considered an invasion of Malta under Plan DG10/42, in which a force of 40,000 men would capture the island. Nearly all 80 purpose-built sea craft that would land the Italian Army ashore were expected to be lost but landings would be made in the north, with an attack upon the Victoria Lines, across the centre of the island. A secondary landing would be made on Gozo, north-west of Malta and the islet of Comino, between the two. All of the Italian navy and 500 aircraft would be involved, but the lack of supplies led the planners to believe that the operation could not be carried out. With the German success in the Battle of France from May–June 1940, the plan was reduced to 20,000 men with the addition of tanks. The Allied defeat in France gave the Italians an opportunity to seize Malta but Italian intelligence overestimated the Maltese defences and Mussolini thought that an invasion would be unnecessary once Britain made peace. Mussolini also expected Francoist Spain to join the Axis and capture Gibraltar, which would close the Mediterranean to the British from the west.[36] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_%28World_War_II%29#Italian_siege_(June%E2%80%93December_1940) The supplies could have been found and be waiting. The 10th Army could have stayed put and thus would have had the supplies where they were at. The 5th Army could also have stayed where it was at so no supplies needed for moving. With the Royal Navy at either end of the Med, there was only one monitor and two gunboats at Malta. There were six Sea Gladiators assembled and six more to be assembled. Three of these were named Faith, Hope, and Charity. Not much air cover against the Italian Air Force. There was one airfield almost completed. There were 4 regular infantry battalions and one territorial infantry battalion. There may have been some light armour besides Bren carriers. They may have been two artillery regiments of 24 guns each, one of 18 pounders and one of 25 pounders. The coastal defense guns could not fire too much against land targets. If only the Italians had tried that...... True. If the Italians had tried that in the Med and were successful in a blitz, then two German Panzer divisions and two Motorized divisions along with good ([sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif]) Italian armoured formations and mobile infantry formations, then Egypt may have been captured. That would make the Eastern Med secure and Central Med more secure. If Gibraltar could be quickly captured, the entire Med would be secure except for any possible Vichy French action. The airborne landings in England would be a blitz type along with the force sent across the Channel to grab some beachfront property. But the British would be surprised and the Royal Navy would be out of position. As long as the Germans could get an airfield away from British Naval bombardment and kept operating otherwise, then more men, equipment, and supplies could be flown in. Do these operations fast and surprise is on your side. Negate the British radar and lessen the distance that the Luftwaffe is from a safe place to land and it takes away the biggest RAF advantage. warspite1 Answers to the points above 1. Sure, if you want to now make the scenario that things happen differently in Case Yellow then that’s fine but I’m not hugely interested. I mean, the halt order was given and Dunkirk did happen. Changing what actually happened at Dunkirk before discussing Sea Lion? it becomes fantasy: let’s assume the Germans don’t make the mistakes they made, while the British continue to make theirs….. 2. I’ve quoted from a German historian that there were insufficient gliders after the Low Countries, but you are still suggesting they be used? As for the aircraft, you mention using other aircraft as paratroop carriers – I’ve no idea as to their availability, their actual nos. or to what extent they could be used for para drops. But sure, if you want to use the few FW-200 on this mission then fine. At least they won’t be giving the convoys a hard time flying from France into the Bay of Biscay/Atlantic - and there will be so many lost over the UK that they won't be troubling the scorers in future either. 3. I’ve explained that the Germans didn’t understand the need to put the British Radar out of action. But if you don't believe me I can tell you what Goering said about attacks on the radar stations if you like? During one meeting Goering questioned the need for continued attacks on the radar towers "as the British have lots of radar stations" and none had been put out of action. This comment was not an order, it was a throw away line as though the whole subject was of little importance. Source: (Bungay) The Most Dangerous Enemy I repeat, if Goering didn't realise the importance of keeping the stations down, then the Germans weren't going to do it. And please don’t say I suggested the Germans didn’t know or understand about Radar itself. What they didn’t understand was the importance of knocking out the towers and that that wasn’t a one-off - that is historical fact as per above. 4. “If the Radar is put out”. Well as stated above if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle. If we are totally re-writing history here, and the Germans suddenly know the importance of keeping these towers down, can we pretend the British had raised an extra five infantry divisions and 2 armoured divisions that they never sent to France? 5. “Not if they set out at night”. So regardless of what time they set out, are you saying that in a 36 hour journey it will always be night? When is this all supposed to be happening again? Suddenly you have plenty of time for the conversion of the barges and dummy runs. Suppose in the many dummy load/unload scenarios you are having the Germans running, this coincides with one of the air attacks the British mounted (and cost the Germans circa 10% of their precious barges)? That’s expensive isn’t it? 6. “The distance is not all that far”…. Okay I’m not going to comment on this point. The answers to other points cover off my thoughts here. 7. Okay. So let’s get this completely clear. If British bombers seek to interfere with the slow moving barges, then the German fighters destroy them. But if the Germans send over slow moving, lumbering Ju-52, Ju-90, Fw-200 and whatever, the RAF can’t touch them? (I say again, look at how many Ju-52 the Germans lost in Holland alone). Have I got the gist of what you are saying? The stuka had to be withdrawn from the Battle of Britain because of its vulnerability and mounting losses, but you have these even slower transport aircraft flying men here there and everywhere without a problem? Oh and the Germans would bomb the Royal Navy so none of their ships can get to the invasion fleet. Wow. Sounds like the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot on steroids - with British planes and ships as the turkeys. Cool. All this despite the fact that the Germans lost the BoB. But in this scenario what are the German fighters doing? They are escorting their bombers seeking to neutralise fighter airfields (same as BoB) they are escorting their aerial artillery which are supporting the landings. They are escorting paratroop filled aircraft, they are escorting gliders (that have suddenly re-appeared from the dead) on missions to destroy radar towers (that historically they don't even know need destroying), they are escorting the slow moving barges headed for England, they are escorting ships heading back to France. The German fighters suddenly have their hands even fuller, even more operations to fly. While the RAF, that never committed anything more than a small % of their strength at any time, have the option of bringing in everything. 8. “Temporary repairs could be made”. So what is the condition of the 5 German heavy surface ships? Scharnhorst required 6 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, the Gneisenau required 5 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, Lutzow required a year of repairs due to a torpedo hit, Graf Spee was already very much sunk. The only ship operational – and that was not until the end of July was Admiral Scheer. That leaves the three heavy cruisers. Well Blucher is at the bottom of a Norwegian fjord, Prinz Eugen wasn’t worked up for service until late 1940/early1941 and Admiral Hipper was ordered into the arctic on a raiding patrol and by the time she finished, at the beginning of August, was in need of a refit (having been damaged during Weserubung). So no, temporary repairs could not be made and at a pinch, one ship was available from August onwards. 9. “Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet”. The British are blockading Italy and they are fully aware that Italy could join the war on the Axis side at any time! But you say the British will allow, without any checks, an unidentified merchant ship into the naval bases at Gibraltar and Malta and to enter the Suez Canal? Absolute and total fantasy. As we’ve discussed before, the only operation that was possible was an assault on Malta. That could have succeeded if the Italians had put everything into it – and I mean everything. Sheers numbers, lack of defenders and proximity to Sicily should have allowed even the Italian military to achieve success.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 6:01:53 AM)
No, some of those barges could handle force 6 winds. There were many different types, including some with bow ramps. I am sure that the Germans also had ferries available. The British must have had one heck of an electrical fence to keep anybody out. Trying to discuss any kind of operation like this with you is nuts because of this invisible electrical fence.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 6:11:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe No, some of those barges could handle force 6 winds. There were many different types, including some with bow ramps. I am sure that the Germans also had ferries available. The British must have had one heck of an electrical fence to keep anybody out. Trying to discuss any kind of operation like this with you is nuts because of this invisible electrical fence. warspite1 Why have you suddenly mentioned an electrical fence? What are you talking about? If you change history so that Dunkirk didn't happen and the Kriegsmarine suddenly had all their big ships available, and the gliders and transport aircraft destroyed in the Low Countries are available, and Goering understands that he needs to keep the towers down, then yes of course the Germans may win. And? So what? You've altered history so much it means nothing. Sure if the subject matter is looking at what could have made Sea Lion work then fine, but that is not what we are discussing here - indeed Curtis Lemay has specifically said no Sea Lion. And just to be clear. Having read so much over the last few years on Sea Lion, Norway and The Mediterranean War, my stance on Sea Lion has softened somewhat. Ten years ago - maybe even a bit less - I was firmly of the opinion that Sea Lion was impossible to pull off. End of story. Now, I am less certain. I look at, for example, Case Yellow, or I look at Weserubung, and I think that one thing is certain. There is nothing certain in war. Could the Germans have somehow pulled it off? I wouldn't put serious money on saying they couldn't. But let's be clear, the problems facing the Germans were pretty huge and everything would have to go right, allied to the British making the wrong calls. The Germans had so much luck in 1939-42 (allied to their not insignificant martial prowess) and the British were so poor (for the most part) in 1939-41, that it would be wrong to say it could never have happened, only that the percentages remained firmly in the British favour.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 7:19:15 AM)
quote: Answers to the points above 1. Sure, if you want to now make the scenario that things happen differently in Case Yellow then that’s fine but I’m not hugely interested. I mean, the halt order was given and Dunkirk did happen. If you want to change things then sure. Like with Curtis Lemay’s proposal it becomes fantasy: let’s assume the Germans don’t make the mistakes they made, while the British continue to make theirs….. Don't insult me by comparing me to Lemay. All I stated was that the German Army not be halted, that they finish the job. How does that become some weird fantasy? Or are you injecting such good pharmaceuticals? 2. I’ve quoted from a German historian that there were insufficient gliders after the Low Countries, but you are still suggesting they be used? As for the aircraft, you mention using other aircraft as paratroop carriers – I’ve no idea as to their availability, their actual nos. or to what extent they could be used for para drops. But sure, if you want to use the few FW-200 on this mission then fine. At least they won’t be giving the convoys a hard time flying from France into the Bay of Biscay/Atlantic. Sufficient or not, what ever they have would have been used. They could also be reused as long as they are not damaged beyond repair or are totally destroyed. At this time, they were not flying from France into the Bay of Biscay nor the Atlantic. 3. I’ve explained that the Germans didn’t understand how to put the British Radar out of action. But you ignore that and said that in your scenario they did know and would take appropriate action. Listen, if you want to go with that a re-write history then fine. That is what we are discussing, rewriting history. A German commando type raid using gliders can put a lot of explosives on the equipment as well as downing the towers. That just might possibly even put the radar unit out of action for at least one hour. Can you comprehend that? And please don’t say I suggested the Germans didn’t know or understand about Radar itself. What they didn’t understand was the importance of knocking out the towers and that that wasn’t a one-off - that is historical fact. Yes, they knew that they had to keep attacking the towers and the sites themselves. That had means of detecting radio waves. You do understand that radar (not Radar, he is a character) works by using radio waves? That the radio waves can actually be detected at ranges farther than the effective range of the radar? 4. “If the Radar is put out”. Well as stated above if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle. Not if she was a hermaphrodite and identified as a female. Or if she had a sex change operation and was castrated. 5. “Not if they set out at night”. So regardless of what time they set out, are you saying that in a 36 hour journey it will always be night? It is a distance of 18 nautical miles across the Channel near Calais to the Dover area. Are you stating that the vessels only travel half a nautical mile per hour? It is a 5 to 7 hour trip on a ferry from Ostend to Dover which is a much greater distance. Dover is such a nice, distinctive port. Have you ever been there? When is this all supposed to be happening again? Suddenly you have plenty of time for the conversion of the barges and conversion runs. How about 23 June 1940? The barges don't necessarily need conversions. Some of them already have vehicle ramps. Don't forget ferries can also carry vehicles such as tanks. They would be considered Roll On Roll Off vessels. This is also the first time that you asked for a date. Suppose in the many dummy load/unload scenarios you are having the Germans running, this coincides with an air attack? That’s expensive isn’t it? Especially for the attacker facing the 8.8cm Flak, plus 37mm and 20mm auto cannons for lower level attacks - that is, after they fighter defense mauls them. There need not be many dummy runs, if any. 6. “The distance is not all that far”…. Okay I’m not going to comment on this point. The answers to other points cover off my thoughts here. You may be confusing this with Operation Neptune, the movement of the invasion fleets to Normandy. 7. Okay. So let’s get this completely clear. If British bombers seek to interfere with the slow moving barges, then the German fighters destroy them. But if the Germans send over slow moving, lumbering Ju-52, Ju-90, Fw-200 and whatever, the RAF can’t touch them. Have I got the gist of what you are saying? The stuka had to be withdrawn from the Battle of Britain, but you have these transport aircraft flying men here there and everywhere without a problem? Oh and the Germans would bomb the Royal Navy so none of their ships can get to the invasion fleet. Wow. That is not what I stated about the transports. If the Germans take off at night and arrive over England around dawn, where is the RAF Fighter Command? Even if the assemble during the day and follow behind a bomber force, is the RAF Fight Command going to meet them right over the beaches? The Luftwaffe would send out fighters sweeps ahead of the air transports along with fighters in close escorting formations. During the night, how would the British necessarily know about any ship movements in the Channel if the sea invasion forces kept blackout conditions? I do believe that the crews and the soldiers on them would not want to be seen from England. Of course, maybe you wwould wwant to be seen so you could try swimming in the Channel while you are loaded down with equipment. 8. “Temporary repairs could be made”. So what is the condition of the 5 German heavy surface ships? Scharnhorst required 6 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, the Gneisenau required 5 months of repair due to a torpedo hit, Lutzow required a year of repairs due to a torpedo hit, Graf Spee was already very much sunk. The only ship operational – and that was not until the end of July was Admiral Scheer. That leaves the three heavy cruisers. Well Blucher is at the bottom of a Norwegian fjord, Prinz Eugen wasn’t worked up for service until late 1940/early1941 and Admiral Hipper was ordered into the arctic on a raiding patrol and by the time she finished, at the beginning of August, was in need of a refit (having been damaged during Weserubung). So no, temporary repairs could not be made and at a pinch, one ship was available from August onwards. The Hipper was usable. The other vessels would just have to be seen moving north, then return to be repaired or to a port away from prying eyes. 9. “Yes. Remember that Italy and the United Kingdom are not at war yet”. The British are blockading Italy and they are fully aware that Italy could join the war on the Axis side at any time! But you say the British will allow, without any checks, an unidentified merchant ship into the naval bases at Gibraltar and Malta and to enter the Suez Canal? Absolute and total fantasy. There was no blockade of Italy yet, such a thing would amount to a declaration of war. That would be bad for the British in the United States. As far as the Suez canal, prohibiting Italian ships would violate The Convention of Constantinople which was signed by both the United Kingdom and Italy, among others. This Convention allowed warships to use the Suez Canal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Constantinople As far as Gibraltar, it had a civilian town and at least one tourist attraction: quote: The Gibraltar Museum The Gibraltar Museum, located within the historical heart of Gibraltar is a national museum of history, culture and natural history. Founded on 23 July 1930 by the then Governor of Gibraltar General Sir Alexander Godley, the Museum houses an array of galleries and exhibits representing the Rocks millennia-old history and the unique culture of the Gibraltarians. Sir Alexander carefully selected two adjacent military quarters to house the Museum. One of the buildings, Ordnance House, was the official residence of the Principal Artillery Officer and beneath it lay the chambers of an ancient bath house dating from Gibraltar's Moorish period. https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/heritage/gibraltar-museum Or a vessel could also have an "engine" malfunction and go to the nearest port. As we’ve discussed before, the only operation that was possible was an assault on Malta. That could have succeeded if the Italians had put everything into it – and I mean everything. Sheers numbers, lack of defenders and proximity to Sicily should have allowed even the Italian military to achieve success. < Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/10/2020 12:57:17 AM > What I have proposed would have taken serious planning as to what happens after France is conquered. It may have seemed to be a pipe dream for some, but that is what you have to plan for. Hope for the best, expect the worst, and you won't be disappointed. You seem to be upset that someone actually could successfully invade England which had not been done since Willy the Bastard did so in 1066. Also read this about the Canal: Were Italian warships allowed to use the Suez Canal before June Tenth 1940? quote: Yes they were, right up until Italy joined with Germany in the Second World War. Britain had two bases to protect the Suez Canal under International Treaty, Alexandria and Port Said. Britain guaranteed free passage for all ships using the Canal and protection of the Canal which was vital to Britain for easier access to the Far East, India, Hong Kong, Australia and so on. One perceived threat to the Canal was Italy which had already had a substantial presence in Libya from 1912, military and civilian, and Mussolini encouraged 30,000 more Italian farmers and settlers to move there in the 1930’s in an attempt to begin rebuilding the old Roman Empire, which included Egypt. However, Britain stuck to the rules and allowed a potential adversary to use the Canal. Italy also regularly used the Canal to reach it’s colony of Italian Somaliland and in October 1935 an Italian invasion fleet was allowed by the British to pass through the Canal carrying 100,000 troops for the invasion of Abyssinia ( Ethiopia ). The invasion was precipitated by a border dispute between Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland. The dispute was supposedly solved by the League of Nations ( existed 1920 - 1946 ), an earlier version of the United Nations, which awarded Italy part of Abyssinia. Mussolini though, wanted it all and invaded. Italy quickly won the War against the poorly equipped Abyssinian troops ( who had actually had rifles and machine guns provided by Hitler ) partly by using poison gas left over from the First World War fired from artilery and dropped by aircraft. The Emperor, Haile Selassi left for exile in Britain in May 1936 on the cruiser HMS Enterprise. Eritrea, Italian Somaliland and Abyssinia were joined together as The Italian Province of East Africa ( also known as Italian East Africa ) with King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy proclaimed as Emperor. . . . https://www.quora.com/Were-Italian-warships-allowed-to-use-the-Suez-Canal-before-June-Tenth-1940?share=1

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 7:21:16 AM)
So Warspite1, with your illegal blockade of Italy before any declaration of war and the violation of The Convention of Constantinople you are actually having the United Kingdom at war with Italy.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 7:30:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe No, some of those barges could handle force 6 winds. There were many different types, including some with bow ramps. I am sure that the Germans also had ferries available. The British must have had one heck of an electrical fence to keep anybody out. Trying to discuss any kind of operation like this with you is nuts because of this invisible electrical fence. warspite1 Why have you suddenly mentioned an electrical fence? What are you talking about? If you change history so that Dunkirk didn't happen and the Kriegsmarine suddenly had all their big ships available, and the gliders and transport aircraft destroyed in the Low Countries are available, and Goering understands that he needs to keep the towers down, then yes of course the Germans may win. And? So what? You've altered history so much it means nothing. Sure if the subject matter is looking at what could have made Sea Lion work then fine, but that is not what we are discussing here - indeed Curtis Lemay has specifically said no Sea Lion. And just to be clear. Having read so much over the last few years on Sea Lion, Norway and The Mediterranean War, my stance on Sea Lion has softened somewhat. Ten years ago - maybe even a bit less - I was firmly of the opinion that Sea Lion was impossible to pull off. End of story. Now, I am less certain. I look at, for example, Case Yellow, or I look at Weserubung, and I think that one thing is certain. There is nothing certain in war. Could the Germans have somehow pulled it off? I wouldn't put serious money on saying they couldn't. But let's be clear, the problems facing the Germans were pretty huge and everything would have to go right, allied to the British making the wrong calls. The Germans had so much luck in 1939-42 (allied to their not insignificant martial prowess) and the British were so poor (for the most part) in 1939-41, that it would be wrong to say it could never have happened, only that the percentages remained firmly in the British favour. I never stated that the destroyed aircraft and gliders would be available but there would be some available. As far as the heavy surface vessels, the Lutzow was ready on 27 July 1940 and the Hipper was ready before that. Even if it was just the Hipper that went out, the British would have to respond. If the Hipper just was seen and then went into a Norwegian fjord where it was unseen, that would have been effective enough for the Royal Navy to have to respond. You can temporarily repair hull damage in a ship with concrete, at least enough to make it sea worthy. Let it be seen, then creep back to a safe port then camouflage it. Don't forget, on 22 April 1778 that England was successfully raided from a ship which then evaded the Royal Navy.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 7:33:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe You seem to be upset that someone actually could successfully invade England which had not been done since Willy the Bastard did so in 1066. warspite1 Well I have to go to work but I've skimmed your answers (which I shall respond to later) but have to comment quickly on this one. That is a rather silly remark. I've said above that I think it could have been achieved. I don't study history to affirm what I want to believe (if I did then I certainly wouldn't look at the start of WWII [8\|]), I study it because it's interesting. If the Germans could have invaded then they could have invaded. There is no question of being upset - don't be absurd. I am simply responding to what you believe was possible with my opinions (and where possible, with fact) - same as you to mine.

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 2:40:54 PM)
Well I only have limited books or have done limited readings on 'what if's' but (and I know this is a talking scenario) for myself the best way to try to wrestle (play out) this scenario is by the use of war games. As far as computer war games go I have played or have there are eight that I can think of that allows us to explore some of these options. Not all of them I can still play, but here are the ones that I am aware of that can model some of this: High Command (old DOS game), Third Reich (old DOS game), Commander Europe at War (older Windows based game), Computer War in Europe II (Windows based game), Strategic Command: War in Europe (Windows based game), Strategic Command: Global War (Windows based game), Matrix's World in Flames (Windows based game) and Warplan (Windows based game). The reason I picked these 8 is because they have some type of political game that influences various 'what if' options. I don't know how pertinent that is to this discussion or not. But one of the things that I do like about SC: War in Europe is that there is a path for the Axis player to go after England, according to that game it suggests (not sure how historically correct this assumption is): Invading Great Britain - A study by staff officers looking into the question of invading Great Britain has reported that if we are to do so in 1940 then there are number of steps we should take to help prepare the way. It then lists five bullet points and summarizes with the warning that it would be a high risk operation, likely to face stiff resistance and also awaking pro-war feelings in the USA and USSR, for both would be alarmed at the implication of a successful invasion of the UK. I think that is a good summation of that topic. I can't recall off the top of my head how the SC series handles Spain and Turkey, but when I loaded the 1940 scenario Spain was sitting at 12% pro-Axis. As the Axis player why would I want to jeopardize that? Likewise in CWIE2 the same thing is in place (in my 'test' game starting with the 1940 scenario, the current Axis Political Level is 39 (I have occupied Poland, Netherlands and still need to occupy Norway (2x pesky CW 2-10 cadres, a French 3-4 Inf.Div and a Norway 3-4 Inf.Div., are preventing this) and take out France and occupy it) and when the Axis Political level reaches the following: Hungary joins Axis: 55 Italy may join Axis: 50 Rumania joins Axis: 60 Bulgaria joins Axis: 60 Spain joins Axis: 75 Turkey Joins Axis: 75 Currently the Axis Political Level is 39, I will gain +3 Political points once I occupy Denmark (screwed up and forgot to garrison it and 2 partisans popped up), and once Belgium is occupied I should get +3, so that will put the APL at +45. Once I occupy Paris that will net a +5 and once I occupy France I'll get +10, so that puts the APL at +60. So at that juncture Hungary, Italy, Rumania and Bulgaria will join the Axis. If one were to violate the neutrality of either Spain or Turkey (as the Axis) that results in a -10 points, which would not sit will with the Axis Minors. However the Axis would need an additional +15 to get Spain to activate as an Axis force. They could do that with either of two paths. If they go for a Sealion and manage to enter London that would net +10 and if they manage to occupy England that would net +10, then Spain joins the Axis. The other path is to forgo England and go for the Med. and Russia. Entering Egypt nets a +3, entering Tunisia, Morocco, or Algeria nets a +3 and entering the Suez nets a +2, for a grand total of +8 for the Med. Russian can yield big dividends, +5 for entering Moscow and +1 for each personal and resource center (there are 24 IIRC). So there is all the from one source; SPI/DG War in Europe (WIE) and Computer WIE II (CWIE2).

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 2:41:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Hills. Are they steep or gently rolling? Are you moving between them or do you have to go over them and capture them? There is a difference. Do you know the difference? Have you any experience climbing hills with full field equipment? No, there really isn't any difference. Tactically, the defenders can arrange their lines so that they make best use of the terrain, however it is oriented. The important thing is that the Germans clearly had experience climbing such hills. quote: If you drive a tank up a hill, the defenders can see and shoot at the lightly armoured belly. They can also have an easier time throwing gas bombs on the top of them not to mention shooting at the weak top armour or even into the engine compartment. Not to mention open topped vehicles like half tracks full of troops. German barbeque anyone? Yet Greece could only hold out about a month.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 2:52:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Hills. Are they steep or gently rolling? Are you moving between them or do you have to go over them and capture them? There is a difference. Do you know the difference? Have you any experience climbing hills with full field equipment? No, there really isn't any difference. Tactically, the defenders can arrange their lines so that they make best use of the terrain, however it is oriented. The important thing is that the Germans clearly had experience climbing such hills. In other words, you have no idea of what you are talking about so how about you shut your pie hole and quit typing? You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill. quote: If you drive a tank up a hill, the defenders can see and shoot at the lightly armoured belly. They can also have an easier time throwing gas bombs on the top of them not to mention shooting at the weak top armour or even into the engine compartment. Not to mention open topped vehicles like half tracks full of troops. German barbeque anyone? Yet Greece could only hold out about a month. The Greeks were taking out the Italian Army. If they had not been flanked, they could have captured all of Albania. With no Italian invasion or just a Greek holding action against Italy, Germany has a much harder time. By then, the British and Commonwealth forces have arrived. So it sounds like you have no actual experience other than war games, pushing counters around or using a computer. You should watch a movie like "Hamburger Hill" to see what it is like attacking uphill.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 2:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Okay so you've ignored Yugoslavia (no acknowledgement that you were wrong there) ... Huh? I can't read your mind. If you have a point, spell it out. quote: ...and now you are going for Greece. Going through Yugoslavia? Again you miss the key points. The Germans also attacked from Bulgaria too. The Greeks, facing the Italian in Albania were suddenly facing an enemy in the rear. They attacked from every direction. Some forces had to cross Yugoslavia to get to Greece. quote: The Greeks in the northwest were supplied from Salonika, once this port was taken - and the terrain is not defender friendly - then the Greeks were in trouble. They still could have been supplied through Athens. But this points out that politics impacts deployments. The Greeks didn't want to abandon their north. The Turks will fall into that as well. They'll lose a big chuck of their force on the European side of the straits. quote: From The German Campaign in the Balkans According to military doctrine the mountainous terrain of Greece would seem ideally suited for defense. The high ranges of the Rhodope, Epirus, Pindus, and Olympus Mountains offer many possibilities to stop an invader. However, the defender must have sufficient air power, if the many defiles are not to become traps for his ground forces. Whereas an invader thrusting from Albania can be stopped with relatively small forces in the high Pindus Mountains, the northeastern part of the country is difficult to defend against an attack from the north. Eastern Macedonia and western Thrace are narrow strips of land that can be cut off from the rest of Greece by an advance following the course of the Vardar River. Salonika, the only efficient port in northern Greece, is situated within this vulnerable area. The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions. Since a voluntary withdrawal of the Greek forces in Albania was not feasible and Salonika was practically indefensible, the Greek and British commands resigned themselves to fighting a delaying action in the northeastern part of the country. The British fully realized the vulnerability of the Greek border defense system; it was bound to collapse in the event of a German thrust between the Strimon and Vardar Rivers. However, they let the Greeks have their way without taking the logical step of moving their forces up to the frontier into the sector west of the Metaxas Line. Why do you keep missing fundamentally important points? I defy you to find anyplace where I've said that the Greeks defending so far forward was a good idea. I've said the opposite. Had they been deployed in their interior, those lines could have held out for a long time.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 2:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill. I know that hills are decent but not insurmountable terrain. quote: The Greeks were taking out the Italian Army. If they had not been flanked, they could have captured all of Albania. With no Italian invasion or just a Greek holding action against Italy, Germany has a much harder time. By then, the British and Commonwealth forces have arrived. So it sounds like you have no actual experience other than war games, pushing counters around or using a computer. You should watch a movie like "Hamburger Hill" to see what it is like attacking uphill. I repeat, Greece only held out against the Germans for a month.

gamer78 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 4:35:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay They still could have been supplied through Athens. But this points out that politics impacts deployments. The Greeks didn't want to abandon their north. The Turks will fall into that as well. They'll lose a big chuck of their force on the European side of the straits. I don't think Turkey will fall into politics about deployment. Ismet İnönü was called Kaiser 'great chief' in Turkey. There are no parties still until 1950. For a 600 years old Empire last 2 centuries was about to survive. I'm sure they know German army is the best in the world at the time. like in Greek&Turkish War in the past Ankara and then maybe Erzurum could be capital. So unlike other new born nations enthusiasm to defend, Turkey would do it more strategically not concentrated in the border I think.

Orm -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/10/2020 4:40:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Hills. Are they steep or gently rolling? Are you moving between them or do you have to go over them and capture them? There is a difference. Do you know the difference? Have you any experience climbing hills with full field equipment? No, there really isn't any difference. Tactically, the defenders can arrange their lines so that they make best use of the terrain, however it is oriented. The important thing is that the Germans clearly had experience climbing such hills. In other words, you have no idea of what you are talking about so how about you shut your pie hole and quit typing? You probably don't know the difference between a military crest or the actual crest of a hill. quote: If you drive a tank up a hill, the defenders can see and shoot at the lightly armoured belly. They can also have an easier time throwing gas bombs on the top of them not to mention shooting at the weak top armour or even into the engine compartment. Not to mention open topped vehicles like half tracks full of troops. German barbeque anyone? Yet Greece could only hold out about a month. The Greeks were taking out the Italian Army. If they had not been flanked, they could have captured all of Albania. With no Italian invasion or just a Greek holding action against Italy, Germany has a much harder time. By then, the British and Commonwealth forces have arrived. So it sounds like you have no actual experience other than war games, pushing counters around or using a computer. You should watch a movie like "Hamburger Hill" to see what it is like attacking uphill. And yet the German forces made the Allied forces retreat in almost every encounter in both Greece, and Norway.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 4:19:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Don't insult me by comparing me to Lemay. All I stated was that the German Army not be halted, that they finish the job. How does that become some weird fantasy? Or are you injecting such good pharmaceuticals? warspite1 I wasn’t comparing you to Lemay. I was simply stating that some of the ideas in his scenario meant the situation was less World War II and more fantasy. In your case I suggested that in coming up with how to make Sea Lion work, you changing what happened at Dunkirk does the same thing. As said, Lemay’s proposal doesn’t even allow for a Sea Lion and so I don’t even know why I answered your post. If you want to discuss Sea Lion, and under whatever criteria you want, then go ahead. I will do what I should have done in the first place and, after this post, stay out of it – not because Sea Lion is uninteresting (it is interesting) but because that is not what Lemay’s ‘staff study’ is about. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Sufficient or not, what ever they have would have been used. They could also be reused as long as they are not damaged beyond repair or are totally destroyed. At this time, they were not flying from France into the Bay of Biscay nor the Atlantic. warspite1 I am sure that there were some gliders. How many I don't know, but if they ruled out the use of any regiments/battalions of the 22nd Air Landing, then I suggest there were not that many. But as said, there were only enough transports for the 7th Flieger Division. If you are going to use whatever gliders there are, these need to be towed. That means these aren’t being used for paratroops. If you want to believe that the handful of Fw-200 Condor then available were not flying naval air missions in the North Sea and then from Western France starting at the end of June, then that is up to you. There are only perhaps a couple of dozen at most by this point so if you want to use Fw-200 over southern England then fine. As said, at least they won't then be troubling the convoys in future after a high % are shot down (based on the Ju-52 experience in Holland). quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe That is what we are discussing, rewriting history. A German commando type raid using gliders can put a lot of explosives on the equipment as well as downing the towers. That just might possibly even put the radar unit out of action for at least one hour. Can you comprehend that? warspite1 Can I comprehend that? Erm, well yes thanks. I am not saying the Germans couldn’t have put the towers out of action – and there were a number of means possible. What I HAVE SAID, and I will repeat yet again, is that operations to take out the towers and radar stations, and keep them down, would only be ordered if the guy making the decisions understands the need to do so. I will repeat this from The Most Dangerous Enemy (Bungay): During one meeting Goering questioned the need for continued attacks on the radar towers "as the British have lots of radar stations" and none had been put out of action. This comment was not an order, it was a throw-away line as though the whole subject was of little importance. So yes, I can fully comprehend what you are saying thank-you. I trust you can comprehend the reasons why Goering was not going to order such missions; he didn’t even understand their importance. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Yes, they knew that they had to keep attacking the towers and the sites themselves. That had means of detecting radio waves. You do understand that radar (not Radar, he is a character) works by using radio waves? That the radio waves can actually be detected at ranges farther than the effective range of the radar? warspite1 You asked if I understood radar. Well no, I don’t have much knowledge of radar and its workings apart from the basic. But so what? What I know, or understand is totally and utterly irrelevant. It was what Goering knew and understood. And we know from history he didn't. Now, like Lemay - who seems to want to turn Goering into a completely different person in his scenario - if you want to give Goering this understanding then fine, but once again it becomes just another Axis fanbois scenario where the Germans do everything right, but the allies make all the same mistakes.... quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe It is a distance of 18 nautical miles across the Channel near Calais to the Dover area. Are you stating that the vessels only travel half a nautical mile per hour? It is a 5 to 7 hour trip on a ferry from Ostend to Dover which is a much greater distance. Dover is such a nice, distinctive port. Have you ever been there? warspite1 Again, not sure why whether I’ve been to Dover – yes of course I’ve driven down the M2 to Dover – is even remotely relevant. But if you want to ignore both British and German sources about the time it would take for these barges to sail from a number of ports along the French and Belgian coast and reach the invasion beaches and instead, quote times for modern day passenger ferries between Ostend and Calais then you go ahead. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe How about 23 June 1940? The barges don't necessarily need conversions. Some of them already have vehicle ramps. Don't forget ferries can also carry vehicles such as tanks. They would be considered Roll On Roll Off vessels. This is also the first time that you asked for a date. warspite1 Okay, so this is happening 23 June…. So this takes place immediately after Red. You told Lemay that he was being unreasonable because he wasn’t allowing the R+R ahead of Spain, but you now have Sea Lion taking place then?? - The Luftwaffe units need R+R - The army need R+R - The barges do need conversion, they need to be taken from the rivers and sent to the ports, the tugs need to be sent to the ports, the massive amount of towing lines need to be prepared, the sailors to man these vessels need to be found. When is all this happening? You think this is some kind of ad-lib operation that can be pulled together at the drop of a hat? - Sorry I thought you were going to fill Scharnhorst and Gneisenau up with concrete and send them to sea?? On 23 June Scharnhorst, with major damage to her engines, had only just limped into Kiel, while Gneisenau was still in Norway being repaired. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Especially for the attacker facing the 8.8cm Flak, plus 37mm and 20mm auto cannons for lower level attacks - that is, after they fighter defense mauls them. There need not be many dummy runs, if any. warspite1 Well clearly if this is all happening on 23 June! then there won’t be time for bomber command to make any attacks….. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe You may be confusing this with Operation Neptune, the movement of the invasion fleets to Normandy. warspite1 Simply. No. Comment quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe That is not what I stated about the transports. If the Germans take off at night and arrive over England around dawn, where is the RAF Fighter Command? Even if the assemble during the day and follow behind a bomber force, is the RAF Fight Command going to meet them right over the beaches? The Luftwaffe would send out fighters sweeps ahead of the air transports along with fighters in close escorting formations. During the night, how would the British necessarily know about any ship movements in the Channel if the sea invasion forces kept blackout conditions? I do believe that the crews and the soldiers on them would not want to be seen from England. Of course, maybe you wwould wwant to be seen so you could try swimming in the Channel while you are loaded down with equipment. warspite1 So let’s re-cap. What you are saying now is that these barges, which are being towed by tugs suddenly become high speed tugs that can get from France to England in a few hours, and they sail in ‘blackout conditions’…. So absolutely no chance of any collisions or accidents there then is there? Not only has there been no time for practice, not only are these crews unused to their tugs/barges (or are you using civilians?), but this operation, that requires massive amounts of co-ordination and order to avoid it becoming an almighty balls up, is all being done in the pitch black. Imagine sailing all these tugs from harbour, connecting the lines to tow the barges (two each!) and then sailing out of port all in the complete darkness, then, with no practice, they are all going to form up perfectly, everyone knows their place, they all know what to do in the event of snagged or broken lines. All the escorts, E-Boats etc need to be in place at the right time too. Cool! It's great being German in WWII isn't it - because normal rules just don't apply? And when they do get to England the Germans would destroy everything in the Great English Channel Turkey Shoot? Sure, my mistake, this sounds like a plan. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe The Hipper was usable. The other vessels would just have to be seen moving north, then return to be repaired or to a port away from prying eyes. warspite1 No. Just No. The Germans are not going to send their precious and heavily damaged ships to sea (even if they could – you know Lutzow almost had her stern torn off right? - you know Scharnhorst had damage to her engines and prop shaft?) with Allied subs in the area. That is ridiculous. You want to use Hipper instead of her planned operation then fine. But there is no point Hipper sailing unless she gets spotted (otherwise the diversion doesn’t work). And even then, assuming a) she gets spotted, and b) she doesn't get sunk by the patrols in the Faroes Gap and the Denmark Strait, you think the entire Home Fleet is going to run around like headless chickens because a heavy cruiser has been spotted?? quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe There was no blockade of Italy yet, such a thing would amount to a declaration of war. That would be bad for the British in the United States. warspite1 Yes, yes there was. In September 1939, Britain imposed a selective blockade of Italy. Coal from Germany, which was shipped out of Rotterdam, was declared contraband. The Germans promised to keep up shipments by train, over the Alps, and Britain offered to supply all of Italy's needs in exchange for Italian armaments. The Italians could not agree to the latter terms without shattering their alliance with Germany. On 2 February 1940, however, Mussolini approved a draft contract with the Royal Air Force to provide 400 Caproni aircraft; yet he scrapped the deal on 8 February. British intelligence officer, Francis Rodd, believed that Mussolini was convinced to reverse policy by German pressure in the week of 2–8 February, a view shared by the British ambassador in Rome, Percy Loraine. On 1 March, the British announced that they would block all coal exports from Rotterdam to Italy. Italian coal was one of the most discussed issues in diplomatic circles in the spring of 1940. In April Britain began strengthening the Mediterranean Fleet to enforce the blockade. Despite French uncertainty, Britain rejected concessions to Italy so as not to "create an impression of weakness". Germany supplied Italy with about one million tons of coal a month beginning in the spring of 1940, an amount that even exceeded Mussolini's demand of August 1939 that Italy receive six million tons of coal for its first twelve months of war. quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe As far as the Suez canal, prohibiting Italian ships would violate The Convention of Constantinople which was signed by both the United Kingdom and Italy, among others. This Convention allowed warships to use the Suez Canal. Or a vessel could also have an "engine" malfunction and go to the nearest port. warspite1 Being allowed to use the Suez Canal, being allowed to use Malta and Gibraltar harbours is not something I said wasn’t allowed. I said that there would be checks made before any old ship is allowed into major naval bases. But again, I don’t even understand what you are proposing (Malta excepted providing it is properly planned and the Italians throw everything at it) with these attacks. If we assume what? a few hundred, totally unsupported Italian troops land in Gib and Port Said. Ignoring the garrisons there for the moment, what are they going to do then? Can you imagine the Italians sending their navy (led by two 12-inch gunned WWI conversions) to either? Cunningham would have been delighted. But genuinely, if this works for you then you go with it. Malta, Gibraltar and Suez/Port Said all fall to the Italians on day 1. Forza Italia!

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 4:38:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe So Warspite1, with your illegal blockade of Italy before any declaration of war and the violation of The Convention of Constantinople you are actually having the United Kingdom at war with Italy. warspite1 No, no I'm not, please see above.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 4:40:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe I never stated that the destroyed aircraft and gliders would be available but there would be some available. As far as the heavy surface vessels, the Lutzow was ready on 27 July 1940 and the Hipper was ready before that. Even if it was just the Hipper that went out, the British would have to respond. If the Hipper just was seen and then went into a Norwegian fjord where it was unseen, that would have been effective enough for the Royal Navy to have to respond. You can temporarily repair hull damage in a ship with concrete, at least enough to make it sea worthy. Let it be seen, then creep back to a safe port then camouflage it. warspite1 Answered above.

Aurelian -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 5:22:11 AM)
The Brits had between 700-800 small coastal craft that would of had something to say about barges being towed to the coast. Only 9 were lost to air attack the entire war. The Luftwaffe made 21 deliberate attacks on them in 1940, and sank.....0. Sure, nine DDs were sunk by air attack in 1940. Out of a force of over 100 in British home waters. Sure 5 were sunk evacuating Dunkirk. Not much of a result given the thousands of sorties flown, thousands of tons of bombs dropped. In 1940, the Luftwaffe was not trained or equipped to attack fast moving naval targets. Eight weeks of air superiority over Norway, and they sank 2 warships. They lacked armor piercing bombs, and the only torpedo bombers they had were HE-115 float planes. Dead meat unless the RAF is beaten. As for towing gliders at night... How are they going to navigate to the target. And why could they not be intercepted? Flying gliders to land troops to take out radar. Then you surround the sites with obstacles to wreck the gliders on landing. And what about guarding the sites with troops?

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 5:31:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Okay so you've ignored Yugoslavia (no acknowledgement that you were wrong there) ... Huh? I can't read your mind. If you have a point, spell it out. quote: ...and now you are going for Greece. Going through Yugoslavia? Again you miss the key points. The Germans also attacked from Bulgaria too. The Greeks, facing the Italian in Albania were suddenly facing an enemy in the rear. They attacked from every direction. Some forces had to cross Yugoslavia to get to Greece. quote: The Greeks in the northwest were supplied from Salonika, once this port was taken - and the terrain is not defender friendly - then the Greeks were in trouble. They still could have been supplied through Athens. But this points out that politics impacts deployments. The Greeks didn't want to abandon their north. The Turks will fall into that as well. They'll lose a big chuck of their force on the European side of the straits. quote: From The German Campaign in the Balkans According to military doctrine the mountainous terrain of Greece would seem ideally suited for defense. The high ranges of the Rhodope, Epirus, Pindus, and Olympus Mountains offer many possibilities to stop an invader. However, the defender must have sufficient air power, if the many defiles are not to become traps for his ground forces. Whereas an invader thrusting from Albania can be stopped with relatively small forces in the high Pindus Mountains, the northeastern part of the country is difficult to defend against an attack from the north. Eastern Macedonia and western Thrace are narrow strips of land that can be cut off from the rest of Greece by an advance following the course of the Vardar River. Salonika, the only efficient port in northern Greece, is situated within this vulnerable area. The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions. Since a voluntary withdrawal of the Greek forces in Albania was not feasible and Salonika was practically indefensible, the Greek and British commands resigned themselves to fighting a delaying action in the northeastern part of the country. The British fully realized the vulnerability of the Greek border defense system; it was bound to collapse in the event of a German thrust between the Strimon and Vardar Rivers. However, they let the Greeks have their way without taking the logical step of moving their forces up to the frontier into the sector west of the Metaxas Line. Why do you keep missing fundamentally important points? I defy you to find anyplace where I've said that the Greeks defending so far forward was a good idea. I've said the opposite. Had they been deployed in their interior, those lines could have held out for a long time. warspite1 You don’t have to read my mind. I did spell it out. You have chosen to ignore what you don’t like as usual. In post 527 you tried to make the point (using a game map) that: quote: Note the terrain is much tougher than Spain and no better than Turkey. Claims that the Germans have never faced anything but flat tank country are false. In Post 529 I said I’d never made the point about flat tank country, but did make the following pertinent observation: quote: As has been said before, look at the short distance that the Axis troops needed to travel - remember the Germans attacked the poor Yugoslavs from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, while the Italians came at the Yugoslavs from Italy and Albania. They were almost completely surrounded. It was not the one axis of attack that confronts the Germans in Spain..... There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either. Once again, you’ve been shown to be wrong so you, not very subtly, simply ignored Yugoslavia and moved onto Greece in post 555: quote: Distance to Madrid from the border was 12 hexes. To Athens from the border is also 12 hexes. That's without going through Yugoslavia first, of course. Hills all the way in Greece. Not so in Spain. I responded in Post 560 that you were wrong about Greece too, and quoted from the Centre of Military History – United States Army’s The German Campaign in the Balkans. This made clear: Whereas an invader thrusting from Albania can be stopped with relatively small forces in the high Pindus Mountains, the northeastern part of the country is difficult to defend against an attack from the north. So your thinking that “Hills are all the way in Greece” just because you’ve looked at a war game map, was shown to be somewhat limited. It also went onto show that, like Yugoslavia, but unlike Spain, the Germans were able to make their initial attacks from more than one direction, and this totally unhinged the Greeks. But furthermore, that extract from the US military study went further. It clearly stated: Eastern Macedonia and western Thrace are narrow strips of land that can be cut off from the rest of Greece by an advance following the course of the Vardar River. Salonika, the only efficient port in northern Greece, is situated within this vulnerable area. The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions. How did you respond? quote: They still could have been supplied through Athens. How arrogant is that? Even the game map you provided shows no rail or road link but you simply ignore this and blandly state the opposite of what a military study concluded. And remember, this is all about your initial comment about how much easier Spain is to attack than Yugoslavia/Greece – and my response showing the terrain does not bear that out in key places, but also that there were multiple directions of attack was in the Germans favour. I made no mention of whether you said the Greeks defending forward was a good idea or not. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that no, the terrain was not as big a problem as ‘your map’ suggests and moreover, the fact that the Germans were able to attack from almost all sides (Yugoslavia) and from three sides (Greece) – as opposed to one narrow front (Spain) - meant that any defensive terrain benefits were limited. Who cares what you or I think about Greek disposition. The fact is they did choose to remain strong in the northwest and, because Salonika was so easy to capture, this unhinged their defence (despite what you say about Athens). The point is not why the Greeks did what they did, it is, what was the effect? So hopefully I have made myself clear and have spelt it out for you? Simply looking at a game’s set of rules and thinking you can conclude from that what was and wasn’t possible in WWII doesn’t wash. Nor does looking at a simple map and deciding you can deduce from that everything you need to know about supply sources and.... well, just about everything else.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 5:54:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian The Brits had between 700-800 small coastal craft that would of had something to say about barges being towed to the coast. Only 9 were lost to air attack the entire war. The Luftwaffe made 21 deliberate attacks on them in 1940, and sank.....0. Sure, nine DDs were sunk by air attack in 1940. Out of a force of over 100 in British home waters. Sure 5 were sunk evacuating Dunkirk. Not much of a result given the thousands of sorties flown, thousands of tons of bombs dropped. In 1940, the Luftwaffe was not trained or equipped to attack fast moving naval targets. Eight weeks of air superiority over Norway, and they sank 2 warships. They lacked armor piercing bombs, and the only torpedo bombers they had were HE-115 float planes. Dead meat unless the RAF is beaten. warspite1 I did say that was my last post on Sea Lion - but I guess I can't help myself [:D] I am pretty sure the Germans would inflict some serious damage on whatever was sent out to attack the invasion fleet. I am also sure that the invasion fleet would have been severely mauled. And that is the key. Unless the Germans landed in sufficient strength, as a cohesive fighting force with enough surviving barges to allow for subsequent waves and re-supply, then any landing would be doomed. TulliusDetrious blandly says the Germans could afford to lose a whole corps. He doesn't seem to understand that a whole corp's worth of invasion barges mean the German follow up waves and re-supply comes largely to a halt. quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian As for towing gliders at night... How are they going to navigate to the target. And why could they not be intercepted? warspite1 One only has to look at D-Day. Even if they weren't intercepted the potential for the drops to go wrong were so high. But there is no reason to believe that there would be at least one of: interception, AA fire or units on the ground to rip into the scattered paras. But these scenarios always assume the Germans do everything right and the enemy are klutzes quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian Flying gliders to land troops to take out radar. Then you surround the sites with obstacles to wreck the gliders on landing. And what about guarding the sites with troops? warspite1 Yes, the British laid a lot of obstacles on any stretch of clear ground. Good point about the troops, I don't know what level of guard (if any) there was around the radar stations.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 6:09:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 You've mentioned five points above, but you've missed the one that kicks all this off - and one that Curtis Lemay refuses to expand upon even though this is his scenario. Hitler has been persuaded to move south (a major volte face but let's go with it). Is it really feasible that the UK is left alone, completely untouched, while the Luftwaffe 'demonstrate' (whatever that means)? Let's be honest no, it's most unlikely, but we know why he doesn't want to agree to that. We know that any Luftwaffe attempt to attack the UK by air will fail - and moreover will be costly. That doesn't fit his scenario. I've asked for thoughts but suspect that there is insufficient interest in the topic to get any response - which is fair enough. But that is fine, Curtis Lemay's scenario has piqued my interest and I will continue to post. I've said from the getgo that there will be no BoB. I still think that just the presence of the huge force left on the channel border, the accumulation of barges, and any sort of activity by the remaining Luftwaffe will be enough to prevent the British from committing more than a token force to Spain. Regardless, even if the entire British army on Britain is committed, there will then be no threat left for France, and most of what was on the channel can be committed to Spain. warspite1 But you are totally missing the point. WHY is there no BoB? We know why it happened in real life - and it wasn't because of Sea Lion, which Goering couldn't give a fig about. So for BoB not to happen in your scenario you are, once again and for no purpose (other than Axis fanboisism), making Goering into a completely different animal. As said, if you want to play total fantasy why not war game the LoTR vs GoT? There has to be a measure of realism or what's the point? warspite1 And we still need an answer to this - without which the scenario can't get off the ground. WHY is there no BoB? I know you don't want one because we know the Germans get seriously mauled, but you have to come up with a believable reason why Goering and Hitler don't go with it. The Battle of Britain happened in real life despite Goering not believing in Sea Lion, despite Hitler seeming to be luke warm at the very best. As many historians have noted. Sea Lion couldn't happen without a successful BoB (for Germany), but a successful BoB would mean that Sea Lion almost certainly wouldn't have been necessary. A successful BoB, by its very definition, means Fighter Command effectively ceases to exist. June 1940, despite not insignificant losses, the Luftwaffe are on a high. they've swept everything put up against them from the sky. They are told that the RAF is on it's last knees. Goering has to keep his pride and joy in the spotlight as far as Hitler is concerned. Hitler is angry with Britain, she won't give in. You think that is the perfect background to Goering and Hitler deciding to leave the UK alone to recover for at least the rest of 1940. You haven't given one single reason to justify Goering now changing from his historical path.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 12:31:01 PM)
The Home defences were not seriously started until May 1940. The 500,000 rifles plus the artillery sent from the US did not arrive until the end of July. The British were so short of ammunition that they did not even practice marksmanship. I had already stated that maybe one panzer division or at least part of one pause after Dunkirk and refit. The German Armee simply keeps moving at Dunkirk instead of pausing. The Initial airborne raid would either take place at dawn or after a wave of bombers so they are much less likely to be attacked by the RAF. They would also fly lower so they may not even been seen by the Chain Home radio stations. How many anti-air craft artillery units were there right along the coast at the time? I also stated that the gliders could even be towed by Stukas and/or Me-109s - even the HS-126. So no actual transport aircraft needed. You may be thinking of the larger gliders that were built later. The HS-126 could also probably land and recover the glider and troops along with any captured equipment and personnel. The beach defenses had a few men and maybe a machine gun every mile or so along the coast and a bicycle messenger, no land lines or radios. Not every exit from the beaches were guarded, if they were defended it was by a few men and maybe an automatic weapon. The British were woefully short of anti-tank guns and other artillery. If done right after the French surrender or even before, it would work. All Goering would have to do is to listen to his experts and air commanders, then say "I don't think that it is necessary but if you think it should be done, then allocate some resources to do so." German paratroopers were members of the Luftwaffe so they would also be at their disposal.

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 1:53:38 PM)
Seems like all the posting my post got lost. Any comments on it with regards to Sealion and Battle of Britain? See post # 579. Also, I am just getting into watching all the tutorials on MWIF...

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 2:07:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zovs Seems like all the posting my post got lost. Any comments on it with regards to Sealion and Battle of Britain? See post # 579. Also, I am just getting into watching all the tutorials on MWIF... warspite1 Hi Zovs, not ignoring you, but the trouble I have in commenting on your post is that I don't play SC (played for a little while) and so I don't really have any context in terms of the various + and -. The other problem is that its not much fun to be saddled too much to history in a strategic game (because players like options) and therefore the modifiers will not necessarily be aimed at realism. I hope this thread has borne out just how bad a Spanish joining with the Axis would be for Spain (and possibly Germany!) but that is boring when playing SC isn't it? Equally it should - if realistic - be a massive problem politically (other Axis powers) and militarily (Occupation drain) and humanitarian (starvation) if the Germans invade the country and then install a German puppet. I just think these two scenarios are so extreme (unless of course Spain enters because the Germans have beaten the British in Egypt, taken Malta and/or invaded the UK) that I can't see it happening realistically. If I read it right, there is no - modifier if Sea Lion is attempted and fails? Now THAT would be a problem for Germany [:)]

UP844 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 2:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UP844 2) As for RAF pilots, they sunk approximately half the merchant ships sunk on the Italy to Libya/Tunisia routes in 1940-43. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I'd like to see a source for that. That figure is way too high. Unless the Tunisian Campaign skews things, but 1940-42 sorry but no. You are right: after I posted, I discovered that the data I found reported the overall Axis merchant ship losses in the Mediterranean, so it also includes the (many) ships sunk in harbour. I'm looking for some more accurate reports. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 The British had dive bombers. Old, obsolete crappy dive-bombers, but dive bombers nonetheless. Indeed the Skuas of 800 and 803 Squadrons sunk the Konigsberg - the first ship sunk by dive bombers and indeed the first warship sunk by air attack. I know about the Skuas, but as far as I know they were built in small numbers, mostly for carrier use by the Fleet Air Arm, so I did not consider them.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 4:47:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 You don’t have to read my mind. I did spell it out. You have chosen to ignore what you don’t like as usual. In post 527 you tried to make the point (using a game map) that: quote: Note the terrain is much tougher than Spain and no better than Turkey. Claims that the Germans have never faced anything but flat tank country are false. In Post 529 I said I’d never made the point about flat tank country, ... But others did. quote: but did make the following pertinent observation: quote: As has been said before, look at the short distance that the Axis troops needed to travel - remember the Germans attacked the poor Yugoslavs from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, while the Italians came at the Yugoslavs from Italy and Albania. They were almost completely surrounded. It was not the one axis of attack that confronts the Germans in Spain..... There were no mountains or hills that blocked the path to the capital from the north either. Once again, you’ve been shown to be wrong so you, not very subtly, simply ignored Yugoslavia and moved onto Greece in post 555: You're so desperate to find some sort of error in my posts that you resort to inventing them. The above is a straw man. I've never said anything contrary to the above. All I said was that the terrain in Yugoslavia and Greece was worse than Spain and at least equal to Turkey. And, the Yugoslavia attackers had to cross lots of Yugoslavia to get to Greece. quote: I responded in Post 560 that you were wrong about Greece too, and quoted from the Centre of Military History – United States Army’s The German Campaign in the Balkans. This made clear: Whereas an invader thrusting from Albania can be stopped with relatively small forces in the high Pindus Mountains, the northeastern part of the country is difficult to defend against an attack from the north. That only concerns the area east of Salonika - which the Greeks were fools to try to defend. The Germans have to get to Athens to force Greek surrender. quote: So your thinking that “Hills are all the way in Greece” I was specifically referring to Athens. quote: But furthermore, that extract from the US military study went further. It clearly stated: Eastern Macedonia and western Thrace are narrow strips of land that can be cut off from the rest of Greece by an advance following the course of the Vardar River. Salonika, the only efficient port in northern Greece, is situated within this vulnerable area. The supply system of the Greek forces fighting in Albania was based on Salonika. The capture of the port would cut their supply lines and isolate them in their exposed positions. How did you respond? quote: They still could have been supplied through Athens. How arrogant is that? Even the game map you provided shows no rail or road link but you simply ignore this and blandly state the opposite of what a military study concluded. Again, that is if they had deployed in the interior, instead of at their frontier. What can't be escaped is that the terrain in Yugoslavia and Greece is worse than the terrain in Spain and at least equal to the terrain in Turkey.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 4:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 WHY is there no BoB? Because they have decided to do a Med Strategy. They know they will not attempt a channel crossing, so why risk using a tactical air force in a strategic role?

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 5:12:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 WHY is there no BoB? Because they have decided to do a Med Strategy. They know they will not attempt a channel crossing, so why risk using a tactical air force in a strategic role? warspite1 For EXACTLY the same reason they did in real life. The RAF was ripe for the taking (supposedly). The Luftwaffe was all conquering and this was the chance to smash Fighter Command into the ground. Without an air force, the chances were high (whether that was wishful thinking from Hitler or not was immaterial) that Britain would sue for peace. At the very least, fighting the British would stop them thinking they could reinforce North Africa (or at very least limit what they could send). Many in Britain didn't believe an invasion was likely - but this did start to change by September. I wonder why that was? Oh yes, it was because the Germans had been hammering away at Fighter Command (and selected other targets). If that military colossus Goering was so concerned that his Luftwaffe was to be used correctly then why did he agree to bombing London? Your suggestion would have more weight if you didn't insist that Italy don't try and attack Egypt. I mean don't get me wrong, it would still be wrong, but at least it would show good faith. But instead? Two bits of positive news for the British in the early years of the war; BoB and Compass.... and guess who has the Axis not undertaking the former and stearing clear of the latter? Just too predictable. An Axis fanbois scenario, not a sensible look at a Med first strategy.

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/11/2020 5:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Hi Zovs, not ignoring you, but the trouble I have in commenting on your post is that I don't play SC (played for a little while) and so I don't really have any context in terms of the various + and -. warspite thank you! quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I hope this thread has borne out just how bad a Spanish joining with the Axis would be for Spain (and possibly Germany!) but that is boring when playing SC isn't it? This is true for both SC and CWIE2, if Spain does join the Axis in CWIE2, then the Axis would have had to take out the UK and be deep in Russia and by that point in the game (if the Allied player was still even interested in playing) the game would be over by the time Spain did so. Likewise it would be complete foolishness to invade Spain in CWIE2, once the CW grows enough and once the US arrive then Spain and Portugal will soon be invaded, probably when German is just getting into Russia, or if Russia attacked first. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Equally it should - if realistic - be a massive problem politically (other Axis powers) and militarily (Occupation drain) and humanitarian (starvation) if the Germans invade the country and then install a German puppet. Correct. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 If I read it right, there is no - modifier if Sea Lion is attempted and fails? Now THAT would be a problem for Germany [:)] Well in CWIE2 terms a failed Sealion means the loss of the NTPs (Naval Transport Points) and Amph points, plus the AP (Air Points) and any ATP (Air Transport Points) not to mention the combat losses involved, this all equates out to lost production and personal points for the Germans, which is a problem in and of it's self in that game, which essentially means a great wreaking of the German ground and air forces to proceed with the war in the east or defend itself from the CW and US in mainland Europe and or Italy.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.9375