RE: The question to ask about The Italians

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

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 2:56:28 PM)
Almost there...a little too late for this message for the Frenchies... [img]https://i.imgur.com/xDxXo8Qh.png[/img] See the 6-6 French Armor Division? There are three of them plus a 3-4 Infantry in that hex, which is Paris.

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 3:03:31 PM)
However things are not looking so good for North Africa and the Italians... [img]https://i.imgur.com/7PWxri3h.png[/img]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 3:24:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay It was not obviously wrong (see above). Even Norway was fully occupied if it did not officially surrender. warspite1 Sorry, what are you talking about? We are talking about whether a country automatically surrenders because the capital has been captured. Norway's capital was captured right at the outset of the campaign in April, but the Norwegians fought until they almost ran out of country at Narvik and were deserted by their Allies in June. What point are you trying to make now? I'll try again, since no matter what I say, my words will be twisted by you: Whether they surrendered upon capture of their capitols or not, they were swiftly reduced to full occupation. And, SPI says that Spain's forces are removed upon the fall of Madrid. I don't rely on just that wargame, but it is a valuable secondary source.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 3:26:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Again, so disingenuous. You completely side step the fact that what you said the Spanish rail road could carry was total and utter garbage in terms of what it could actually carry. I am not talking a little bit I am talking night and day, chalk and cheese. But you can't even bring yourself to say, "yep, fair cop gov, I was completely wrong on that one" but instead change the point to hide yet another false 'fact'. I've never said that the Spanish rail line wouldn't require repair. That's standard for any campaign. And, note that they forces for Spain wouldn't really be needed again until about June, 1942. There's plenty of time for extensive repairs.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 3:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The example of Barbarossa showed that Mussolini could be enticed by German plans. German adoption of a Med Strategy would have impacted his decisions. warspite1 You just keep repeating yourself without providing any evidence, any quotes, any directives, any diary entries any..... absolutely anything at all. You said it, so it must be right, yes? No evidence? I have to prove to you that Italy joined Barbarossa? Quotes, directives, diary entries: Just Words. Trumped by deeds. What did they actually do? They joined a German operation. That proves my claim above: they can be enticed by German plans.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 3:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Wrong, it would continue. The Spanish Maquis were already in France and crossing the border. Later in the war they captured Irun. No. The constrained frontage area would not continue once the Germans get past that constriction point. Then the frontage would expand across Spain. quote: Please explain how capturing Gibraltar closes the eastern Med? Western Med. quote: Fronts? You mean weather fronts? Or Soviet Army fronts? Tanks were destroyed with turpentine, that is not rubbish. Remember, anything over a 7% grade is an obstacle. Those have to be taken into consideration. I mean that the arrows on the Map I provided are symbolic of the movement of front lines. The troops were not lined up, single file behind the arrow head.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 3:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I was talking about the map you originally showed. But the Wiki map serves just as well. It doesn't matter what is on that map. The Germans didn't travel to the Greco-Albanian border according to what you presented. But I am not going to waste any more time on this. So I provide a military study that sets out the problems for the Greeks facing the Italians (if Salonika is taken). This is a study written by professionals in the US military. You provide a game map and a map from Wiki that you say PROVES that Athens was a viable supply point for those Greek troops in the northeast. I have no idea where you are coming from and I have nothing more to add on this, other than you've done yourself no favours whatsoever. The Wiki map clearly showed the Germans moving across the spine of the Greek mountains. That means the Greek supply columns could have done so as well. Here's another map from another source showing a little more detail. Clearly, the Italians dealt with the Greeks in the area your talking about. So the Germans had no need to go there. Also, note the text at the top and how it describes the German armor getting into the rear of the British lines via "impassible" terrain! The arrows on maps such as this should not be read as troops moving in single file. They are symbolic of the movement of fronts. All of Greece would have been fought over, including the hills. [image]local://upfiles/14086/235AC68A174348D39051A63CAF9F16CD.jpg[/image] warspite1 Once again I will ignore the nonsense about fighting on hills. I still haven't said the Germans couldn't do that and you still answer my posts as though I have. Boring. But back to what we were talking about and...... once again, It appears we are talking about two entirely different things - or at least two completely different parts of Greece - or in this case Yugoslavia! Unbelievable. What the hell has the Germans entering the Monastir Gap from the north got to do with what we have been talking about???? I like how you post a picture of a book that has no name for the book not the author. That is acceptable, right? I am sure that an English or a History professor would accept something like that in a research paper. I didn't realize I was writing a research paper. "The Historical Atlas of World War II", John Pimlott. ISBN 0-8050-3929-5. 1995. quote: I noticed that the book said something about "impassible" terrain. The French thought that the Ardennes was "impassible" to armoured units as well. But that is not in Greece which had fully mobilized, that was Yugoslavia which was barely into the process of mobilizing when it was attacked. So? It still had those "impassible" road grades!! [X(]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 3:51:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys. According to you, Germany has already violated Spain. The United Kingdom would welcome Spain into the Alliance and provide assistance. Even assistance from the United States not to mention Latin America could be forthcoming. Germany violated France as well. Still got a Vichy France. How could a Vichy Spain not be more likely than a Vichy France was? Franco was a potential Axis member.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/24/2020 9:59:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys. According to you, Germany has already violated Spain. The United Kingdom would welcome Spain into the Alliance and provide assistance. Even assistance from the United States not to mention Latin America could be forthcoming. Germany violated France as well. Still got a Vichy France. How could a Vichy Spain not be more likely than a Vichy France was? Franco was a potential Axis member. Because of Spanish Honor plus the fact that they are Nationalists and are assisting Germany. Then they are attacked by Germany. The Spanish do not have a colonial empire to try and keep unlike the French. Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists. BTW, if the powers that be have ever let you drive, did you only drive in flat land country or have you driven in the mountains? Or have you even been on mountain roads?

IslandInland -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 1:17:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: IslandInland I'm wearing a mask whenever I read this thread now. It seems quite virulent and vitriolic. And exhausting. [we need a mask emoticon]. [8D][8\|] I am glad that you are enjoying it. [:D] In a car crash way only. [sm=duel.gif][sm=00000023.gif][:D]

Zorch -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 6:38:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys. According to you, Germany has already violated Spain. The United Kingdom would welcome Spain into the Alliance and provide assistance. Even assistance from the United States not to mention Latin America could be forthcoming. Germany violated France as well. Still got a Vichy France. How could a Vichy Spain not be more likely than a Vichy France was? Franco was a potential Axis member. Because of Spanish Honor plus the fact that they are Nationalists and are assisting Germany. Then they are attacked by Germany. The Spanish do not have a colonial empire to try and keep unlike the French. Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists. BTW, if the powers that be have ever let you drive, did you only drive in flat land country or have you driven in the mountains? Or have you even been on mountain roads? Flatland, you say? No need for Luftwaffe here. [image]local://upfiles/34241/D9968EB81F98417BB68B0336CF72D8B0.jpg[/image]

Piteas -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 8:34:39 AM)
A great discussion. Just a comment as spaniard... I understand why Franco didn�t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn�t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas. On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too. Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn�t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn�t end in Madrid.

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 11:49:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Piteas A great discussion. Just a comment as spaniard... I understand why Franco didn�t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn�t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas. On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too. Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn�t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn�t end in Madrid. Thank you for the insight.

MrRoadrunner -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 2:02:36 PM)
Remember the old war game adage? No plan survives the first die roll! [8\|] RR

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 2:26:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Because of Spanish Honor... France had no honor? quote: plus the fact that they are Nationalists and are assisting Germany. Then they are attacked by Germany. The Spanish do not have a colonial empire to try and keep unlike the French. All the more reason to make an deal. If Franco depends upon the Allies, they will put the Republicans in charge after the war. And they have Spanish Morocco - much the same as French Morocco. quote: Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists. Again, all the more reason for Franco to make a deal. quote: BTW, if the powers that be have ever let you drive, did you only drive in flat land country or have you driven in the mountains? Or have you even been on mountain roads? Please keep pushing that road grade idiocy. And hills aren't mountains. I'm trying to think of any army in history that was stopped by road grades on hills - not enemy defenders in hills, just road grades. Coming up empty.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 2:33:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 I was talking about the map you originally showed. But the Wiki map serves just as well. It doesn't matter what is on that map. The Germans didn't travel to the Greco-Albanian border according to what you presented. But I am not going to waste any more time on this. So I provide a military study that sets out the problems for the Greeks facing the Italians (if Salonika is taken). This is a study written by professionals in the US military. You provide a game map and a map from Wiki that you say PROVES that Athens was a viable supply point for those Greek troops in the northeast. I have no idea where you are coming from and I have nothing more to add on this, other than you've done yourself no favours whatsoever. The Wiki map clearly showed the Germans moving across the spine of the Greek mountains. That means the Greek supply columns could have done so as well. Here's another map from another source showing a little more detail. Clearly, the Italians dealt with the Greeks in the area your talking about. So the Germans had no need to go there. Also, note the text at the top and how it describes the German armor getting into the rear of the British lines via "impassible" terrain! The arrows on maps such as this should not be read as troops moving in single file. They are symbolic of the movement of fronts. All of Greece would have been fought over, including the hills. [image]local://upfiles/14086/235AC68A174348D39051A63CAF9F16CD.jpg[/image] warspite1 Once again I will ignore the nonsense about fighting on hills. I still haven't said the Germans couldn't do that and you still answer my posts as though I have. Very poor form. But back to what we were talking about and...... once again, It appears we are talking about two entirely different things - or at least two completely different parts of Greece - or in this case Yugoslavia! Unbelievable. What the hell has the Germans entering the Monastir Gap from the north got to do with what we have been talking about???? When, in the previous posts, did Yugoslavia come up in connection with this map???? This is happening too often. The argument was about the provision of an entire Greek army on the Albanian front. You present a map that shows the Germans moving into positions from the south - troops that by the time they get into that position, would be supplied from the north - possibly from Bulgaria via Salonika. But you choose, for absolutely no apparent reason, to bring Yugoslavia into it?!?!?!? Why? What relevance does this have - other than a pathological desire not to be seen to be wrong. As said, I have a choice between you and your wiki/game maps vs a US Military study. I'll stick with the professionals if its all the same. warspite1 So no response to this. We've been discussing the supply of the 2nd Greek Army for weeks and your total disregard for a US military study - you then, seemingly for absolutely no reason - decide to bring Yugoslavia into it. I asked you why, as part of the debate, and your response is to ignore the question?

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 2:38:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Piteas A great discussion. Just a comment as spaniard... I understand why Franco didn�t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn�t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas. On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too. Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn�t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn�t end in Madrid. warspite1 Thank you Piteas for your thoughts - particularly welcomed as a Spaniard. I hope you will hang around for more debate.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 2:44:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The example of Barbarossa showed that Mussolini could be enticed by German plans. German adoption of a Med Strategy would have impacted his decisions. warspite1 You just keep repeating yourself without providing any evidence, any quotes, any directives, any diary entries any..... absolutely anything at all. You said it, so it must be right, yes? No evidence? I have to prove to you that Italy joined Barbarossa? Quotes, directives, diary entries: Just Words. Trumped by deeds. What did they actually do? They joined a German operation. That proves my claim above: they can be enticed by German plans. warspite1 Once again such crass responses simply undermines you and your credibility. To spell it out: a) No you don't have to prove Mussolini offered troops to Hitler because its a fact. I am however pleased that you at least admit this now, unlike your original belief when you insisted that Hitler persuaded Mussolini to join.....[8\|] b) The question is whether Mussolini would have behaved totally differently to real life in 1940 and in so doing, decided to completely subordinate his army, his dreams and desires for Italy, to the wishes of Hitler. If you believe that quotes, directives, diary entries etc are just words that are trumped by deeds even when those deeds in question didn't happen - because this is a counterfactual - then I simply don't understand where you are coming from. As has been made crystal clear to you, the circumstances that Mussolini and Italy found themselves in in June 1940 and a year later are chalk and cheese. You simply can't say Mussolini did x in 1941, therefore he would have done y in 1940. Life isn't that simple - and certainly wasn't simple for Mussolini after the events of Greece, Compass and Matapan (to name but three) that left Italy in a very different situation vis-a-vis freedom in choice of action a year after declaring war.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 2:47:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Again, so disingenuous. You completely side step the fact that what you said the Spanish rail road could carry was total and utter garbage in terms of what it could actually carry. I am not talking a little bit I am talking night and day, chalk and cheese. But you can't even bring yourself to say, "yep, fair cop gov, I was completely wrong on that one" but instead change the point to hide yet another false 'fact'. I've never said that the Spanish rail line wouldn't require repair. That's standard for any campaign. And, note that they forces for Spain wouldn't really be needed again until about June, 1942. There's plenty of time for extensive repairs. warspite1 Yet more side-stepping the answer to the real points..... Sure, you can keep talking about rail repair (for some bizarre reason) while hoping that everyone forgets your statement about rail lines and how you 'proved' the Spanish rail network could transport unlimited amounts of supply for the German army by providing a Wiki article on US Railroads..... But here is the line that really shows up that you simply don't understand the points being made - either because you can't (which I don't believe for one second) or because you don't want to (because you can't ever be wrong). quote: The Spanish lines will need some repair, that's all. So let's be clear here. After everything that the German planners of Felix (you know the professionals) said about the Spanish rail system - old, small stock, insufficient numbers, poorly maintained, the state of the beds meaning they couldn't actually carry the loads they were designed for, different practices operated by the four companies - all of which led them to conclude that they could expect just 4 trains a day carrying a meagre 400 tons, you say all that is needed was some repair. I mean you need to start getting real here. The track beds themselves need strengthening. You think that is minor repair work while the Germans are fighting the Spanish? How does some repair cure the issue of insufficient rolling stock? Do you not realise how thoroughly ridiculous these suggestions are?

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 2:52:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay It was not obviously wrong (see above). Even Norway was fully occupied if it did not officially surrender. warspite1 Sorry, what are you talking about? We are talking about whether a country automatically surrenders because the capital has been captured. Norway's capital was captured right at the outset of the campaign in April, but the Norwegians fought until they almost ran out of country at Narvik and were deserted by their Allies in June. What point are you trying to make now? I'll try again, since no matter what I say, my words will be twisted by you: Whether they surrendered upon capture of their capitols or not, they were swiftly reduced to full occupation. And, SPI says that Spain's forces are removed upon the fall of Madrid. I don't rely on just that wargame, but it is a valuable secondary source. warspite1 I have to ask what has how quickly they surrendered have to do with anything? If a country continues fighting until they've almost run out of country, troops and Allies (like Norway), then the fact its two months doesn't matter. The point is, they have not made a decision to quit because their capital was taken, they made the decision to quit because there really wasn't much else they could do other than retreat further into the Arctic Circle with the few troops they had left....... If, as in the case of Poland, the fighting ended very quickly (because again they literally ran out of country and men) again it doesn't matter because Poland never surrendered and look at the number of airmen, soldiers and sailors that got away to carry on fighting alongside anyone that gave them access to killing Germans - British, French or Soviet. You have no primary source to support your claim and the secondary source (a wargame) doesn't count for the reasons you've been repeatedly told. Could Spain have fallen after the capital was taken? Well that is what we seek to discuss and decide. But you using a war game as your initial primary source, was not clever and then, when you looked at other European countries, you drew entirely the wrong conclusions. Then, having drawn entirely false conclusions, instead of just admitting it, you seek to squirm your way out of it by trying to set some sort of arbitrary 3 month rule on whether the loss of the capital could be counted. I mean what the hell? As for "twisting your words". When have I twisted your words in any part of this debate. I have not intentionally twisted anything and if I have - then this will be a genuine mistake so please confirm where I've twisted your words. If I have I will apologise - and no doubt you will apologise to me for taking my comments out of context by removing key sentences to make me look like I've said something else.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 3:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Do you know how long the Germans planned for the destruction of Gibraltar? Two weeks? Three weeks? How long were the Germans going to hang around without any need to rush? Why does Gibraltar have to be ready before Spain can begin???? warspite1 What has that question got to do with my quote? You said matter of factly that Spain needed to be conquered quickly but the Germans could take their time over Gibraltar. I would like to know why you believe that? What is the rationale? And I would like to know what you believe to be the Germans timescale for reducing Gibraltar. warspite1 Third request. Well? You said the Germans needed to beat Spain quickly but would be happy to take their time over Gibraltar. Where did that come from? What study have you made of German plans for Gibraltar such that you can confidently state this?

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 3:01:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay They rested and refitted after the Fall of France because they could - no other reason. If France had lasted longer, they would have carried on as long as it took. Take Barbarossa: continuous combat from late June to the end of October, with perhaps four weeks stopped. Take the Allies in France in 1944: From early June to the end of September before any pause. There is no requirement to rest entire divisions because tanks need repair. You just pull individual tanks out of the line, service them, and send them on to catch up once they're back in condition. warspite1 We've covered this. No one is denying that sometimes (in fact very often) units are kept in the field too long out of necessity - because circumstances dictate. That doesn't make it right and not something an army chooses to do for obvious reasons, and no one chooses to start a whole new campaign with understrength, tired units..... Circumstances will dictate for Spain too. And, as I've said before, there will be a standard distribution of fatigue in the German units. Those that are freshest can be used in Spain. Those that have seen the heaviest action will form the deception on the Channel. warspite1 Not at all. They will all be fresh. The time it will take to deal with the political/diplomatic aspects, the training of the Kuebler's XLIX Corps and the intelligence work on the Rock - this operation won't be ready until late 1940 at the earliest. Why? Why can't the political stuff take place earlier, if the grand plan is to do a Med Strategy from the get go? Why does the Spain operation have to wait for Gibraltar to be ready? warspite1 For the reasons I've gone to great trouble and time to set out. I've actually set out what happened in real life and what was occupying the mind of Hitler since the start of the war. I've put effort into trying to make a case. And then you ask that question...[8\|] warspite1 Well? Have you given my comments the basic courtesy of being read? You've asked the question, a question I've taken the time and trouble to answer in some detail already. Have you bothered to read this yet?

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 3:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Yes, its obvious to anyone that one would need both sides of the Straits to truly be able to traverse from the Med to the Atlantic without fear of mines, coastal batteries, aircraft etc. That is why - despite the unsubstantiated verbiage that Curtis Lemay comes out with, Hitler was going to order an armoured and motorised division into Spanish Morocco - and why there would always need to be a German garrison of some description there. I still see a Vichy Spain as more probable than Vichy France was. If that's the case, the British would have to violate Spain to take that or the Canarys. warspite1 Two things: a) with the greatest respect, and not wishing to be rude, I don't care what you think. I do however very much care what evidence you have gathered to make you think what you do. You never mentioned 'Vichy' Spain originally, so what have you sourced to make you think this an option. Please provide and we can discuss. How does it come about, on who's insistence, what does it mean exactly and how does a 'Vichy' impact the war with Britain? b) So you expect the British to wait the very minimum of six weeks - and that is a very, very minimum - for the Germans to conquer Spain and Gib and only then, not until a new regime has been installed do the British set about occupying the Canaries....? Come on Curtis Lemay, you are taking the mickey, you can do better than that surely? warspite1 And no response (other than to Ranger Joe) and this quite extraordinary comment.... quote: Germany violated France as well. Still got a Vichy France. How could a Vichy Spain not be more likely than a Vichy France was? Franco was a potential Axis member. Do you actually know what Vichy was? Do you understand anything about how such a creation came about and considered why no other country was treated in this way? Do you know who was behind it? Do you know the benefits to France/Germany and what each sought from it? You seem to have picked up on this 'neat' idea because France 'got one' [8\|] without bothering to understand anything about it - and without feeling it necessary to explain anything in support of your notion that it would be appropriate for Spain. That was bad enough, but the even bigger surprise was your comment in bold. I've asked you to explain just why the British would be violating Spain and your silence was deafening. I mean come on Curtis Lemay, this is actually important stuff in terms of how the Spanish operation pans out - and you simply can't be arsed to comment or you realise just how silly that comment was and, like so many comments, you'd rather just sweep under the table???? Day 1 Germany invades Spain. The British have a plan in place for seizing the Atlantic islands of Spain and Portugal in the event Spain joins with Hitler - but presumably you knew this right?* You really think that the British will not be sending those Royal Marines straight to the Canaries in this scenario? Then what? Having taken the Canaries to counter the loss of Gibraltar, you think - and I can't even believe I'm writing this - that the British would then hand the island back to Spain because Spain surrendered ('Vichy' Spain or not)? And then, the British would re-invade thus 'violating' Spain???? You don't see that this is completely and utterly ludicrous? * Out of interest how does your war game treat the Canaries? What actions are available to either the Germans or British upon the Germans invading Spain?

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 3:25:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Piteas A great discussion. Just a comment as spaniard... I understand why Franco didn�t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn�t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas. On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too. Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn�t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn�t end in Madrid. warspite1 Thank you Piteas for your thoughts - particularly welcomed as a Spaniard. I hope you will hang around for more debate. warspite1 One thing I am keen to understand more about are your thoughts on the various divisions in Spain, not just the rival political groups but also the rival regional groups - the Basques and the Catalans being perhaps the most important? How would these be likely to react to a German invasion - i.e. were any of them likely to be pro-German in return for autonomy, or would the hatred of Germany trump any immediate nationalistic or Political issues? (as per the Ukraine, there would perhaps be little likelihood for German willingness to grant autonomy, and I would think it unthinkable with regard to the Basques as the German need to occupy the coastal areas in the north, west, and south)? Also how much do you know about Franco's own position within the Government and how secure he would be - personally I can only imagine his position strengthening as a result of standing up to Germany? Finally, when the Germans do win - and ultimately they would - is there an obvious candidate as a German puppet to take the place of the deposed (and by now, very dead), Franco? Thank-you.

Zorch -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 3:45:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Piteas warspite1 warspite1 Finally, when the Germans do win - and ultimately they would - is there an obvious candidate as a German puppet to take the place of the deposed (and by now, very dead), Franco? Yes, Milord, there is. He has experience as a puppet ruler. [image]local://upfiles/34241/7663A8723FCB415B8A8F5846553D5260.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/25/2020 3:57:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Because of Spanish Honor... France had no honor? Some Frenchmen did as in De Gaulle but not Petain. The government gave up, so yes, no Honor. quote: plus the fact that they are Nationalists and are assisting Germany. Then they are attacked by Germany. The Spanish do not have a colonial empire to try and keep unlike the French. All the more reason to make an deal. If Franco depends upon the Allies, they will put the Republicans in charge after the war. And they have Spanish Morocco - much the same as French Morocco. It has been explained why Franco and the Nationalists would make no deal yet your refuse to except it. BTW, How are your pharmaceuticals holding up? Are they doing what they are supposed to do? quote: Plus the Spanish Maquis kept fighting and even invaded Spain to try and get the Allies to take out Franco. That did not work. The Spanish Republicans would be unlikely to work for the Nazis and according to you, the Nazis would take out the Nationalists. Again, all the more reason for Franco to make a deal. Why would Franco make a deal because of this? The Spanish Maqui invaded Spain in 1944 after most of France was liberated. So why would Franco make a deal with Nazi Germany then? The few guerillas in Spain could be and were relatively easily handled by the Nationalists, why did Spain need the German Army to help. quote: BTW, if the powers that be have ever let you drive, did you only drive in flat land country or have you driven in the mountains? Or have you even been on mountain roads? Please keep pushing that road grade idiocy. And hills aren't mountains. I'm trying to think of any army in history that was stopped by road grades on hills - not enemy defenders in hills, just road grades. Coming up empty. So you have only driven on flat lands, if you have even been allowed to drive at all. You also have never been in the mountains. So you can't comprehend what I am referring to. I suggest that you have someone do some research for you so you will believe them. But 7% grade or more is a road obstacle. So are sharp turns. Combine the two and have fun.

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/26/2020 10:45:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Piteas A great discussion. Just a comment as spaniard... I understand why Franco didn�t want to enter the war. He knew that any "friendly army" entering Spain would cause a strong rejection in the population... like the Napoleonic army in 1808. He didn�t want another Wellington with a british army marching with strong support of guerrillas. On the other hand, his demands on Hitler were exaggerated: Only the spanish army would conquer Gibraltar (with Luftwaffe support), all of French Morocco, half of Algeria and huge amounts of military supplies (vehicles, tanks, not German soldiers) to fight against England and her eternal ally Portugal, because the alliance with Germany would cause war with Portugal too. Also, The conquest of Madrid would be a moral blow, but not a decisive one. Spain isn�t centralized around its capital, like France. There are many cities that would replace Madrid: Seville, Valencia, Cadiz (it was the capital during the Napoleonic invasion) ... the war didn�t end in Madrid. warspite1 Apart from the political points I raised previously Piteas, I would also be grateful if you could give us the benefit of anything you can provide on the military situation. It seems that the Spanish army was 250,000 strong in July 1940 and Franco had started to put in place measures to increase the numbers, but these would have only just been started and because of the financial situation may not have been possible. I've also read that as a precautionary measure Franco ordered the border with France to be reinforced in case Hitler did decide to get silly. Can you provide any detail on that? Thanks!

warspite1 -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/26/2020 11:42:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zovs However things are not looking so good for North Africa and the Italians... [img]https://i.imgur.com/7PWxri3h.png[/img] warspite1 Hi Zovs. I am a little confused by this picture - I think its the colours (the Italians are British coloured and the British are French coloured [:)]) but I am assuming this is the summer or autumn of 1940. But more to the point is that this picture seems to indicate there are five British divisions and three of these are armoured divisions. If this is so, this bears no relation to reality - in terms of numbers and the values (when compared to the German divisions in the picture above). Just to be clear, is this the game that Curtis Lemay is basing his Spanish order of battle off? I know he produced a map of a board game but the values of the counters look similar.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/26/2020 2:54:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 So no response to this. We've been discussing the supply of the 2nd Greek Army for weeks and your total disregard for a US military study - you then, seemingly for absolutely no reason - decide to bring Yugoslavia into it. I asked you why, as part of the debate, and your response is to ignore the question? For the nth time, I am debating more than just you. There is literally a claim that the Germans somehow got through Yugoslavia and Greece without encountering hills.

Zovs -> RE: The question to ask about The Italians (9/26/2020 2:54:51 PM)
Warspite, Yes the colors are a little misleading, I am using the SPI counter colors from 1976, back then for wargames pastel colors were just coming into vogue. The CW are white font on medium blue, French are black font on light blue and Italians are black on orange. There is an option in the game to switch to using the DG 1999 colors. This is from late 1940 (afk but I think the 10th cycle or the week before October), I shipped two of the British armor units to North Africa IIRC, and only put three 8-10 CW infantry divisions in France along with one 3-8 armor brigade, all were lost in France including all the CW air point save one. I also lost two 3-8 armor brigades shipping them to NA. I kept every British major and minor port garrisoned with a 8-10 to sway the Axis from Sealion and or to shift to Spain. As the Axis I am doing the best Med Front strategy, but decided that Spain is just too costly, in doing so I have had the Italians activate (was expecting) and once both Norway and France surrendered and were garrisoned have Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria activated as Axis allies. If I invade Spain the I�ll loose support of these Axis allies and they may revert or surrender. So it�s just not worth the risk. To go into the Med I need to go through Yugoslavia and Greece, but mud is soon approaching and mud literally sucks wads in this game, so I may have to wait til Spring 1941. Oh yes this is the computer version of that game, Computer War in Europe II, or CWIE2.

Page: << < prev 27 28 [29] 30 31 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.78125