quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am not sure if you believe what you are writing or just attention seeking. Genuinely, your comments are becoming so bizarre the more this goes on.

a) where is the evidence that Britain were going to do that? Perhaps you think they possessed Iceland? or Crete?
b) how many territories were possessed by Britain, France, America as they came back at the Germans in WWII?
c) Every post you just make yourself look more and more 'limited' in your thinking, in your knowledge, in your analysis. So with 800 German aircraft in southern France, if Gibraltar is not going to be a viable port, why do you think Corunna or Cadiz or anywhere else on mainland Spain is going to be? I mean do you EVER bother to think anything through?

I've not said that they were going to incorporate them into their national territories. But they won't get out if the Spanish demand it. That's what matters.

Those planes were in France as well. The British still had to be on the mainland. They were not given access to FNA.

warspite1

You said the British were going to possess the islands. But now you play word games with possession and incorporation???? What is the difference?

Here's some of your quotes to help you:

quote:

They would possess them. And good luck to the Spanish getting them out.

What is that possession or 'incorporation'?

quote:

I don't think Franco will agree to British possession of their colonies

quote:

And the British are taking possession of the Canaries, as I've made clear elsewhere. If the Spanish can't get them to leave, that's possession.

.... or is that incorporation????

But regardless of the infantile word games, why would the Spanish demand the Royal Navy leave anyway? They will be happy for the Royal Navy to leave once the war is won - because that means Spain is no longer occupied by the Germans. In the absence of Gibraltar the Royal Navy need the Canaries.

No idea what you are talking about the British being on the mainland. But I'm sure it means something to you, but if you mean British troops on the mainland (and that's not a likely scenario) wouldn't that mean possession so Franco won't let them in anyway? [:D]

I still have no idea why you keep bringing French North Africa into the conversation.

warspite1

Well? Do I get the courtesy of a response or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

2) some of the supplies landing in Tripoli, Bengasi or Tobruk were brought near the front by means of small coastal convoys

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know anything about the taking of Tobruk? Clearly not, but that is not important. What is important:

Why are you fixated on Tobruk - you know this was nowhere near their goal and that Tobruk is in Libya right?

So if the Germans had enough supply to take Tobruk from the green 2nd South African Division, that proves all your arguments about supply.... in Spain?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

quote:

Did Rommel have an army group in Libya? No, so that is not a comparison - I ask again, what does this one isolated case have to do with Spain?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.

Wrong. It is pertinent as to how much of the force is supplied by trucks since those are a limited asset, the farther the units are from the supply source the harder it is to supply them or fewer units will be able to be supplied by the same number of trucks.

Or are you stating that it would be just as easy for Southern California to send the same amount of supplies to New York City as it would be to send the same amount of supplies to Las Vegas using the same number and types of trucks using the same number of men, supplies, and equipment to support said trucks? Plus keep doing so for weeks and months?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I just think you are still looking at this as a simple wargame. No logistics required. The whole point of this scenario from a German perspective is that it will put them in a better position than they were in in June 1941 historically. If not then its no good. The better start position in Turkey (if indeed that is achievable) will be squandered it they don't manage this properly.

And if they possess Gibraltar, Suez, and the Turkish border with the Russians they will be in a much better position.

The whole thing comes down to just how tough the Spanish and Turkish operations are going to be. You're trying to build them up into supermen. They aren't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am not sure if you believe what you are writing or just attention seeking. Genuinely, your comments are becoming so bizarre the more this goes on.

a) where is the evidence that Britain were going to do that? Perhaps you think they possessed Iceland? or Crete?
b) how many territories were possessed by Britain, France, America as they came back at the Germans in WWII?
c) Every post you just make yourself look more and more 'limited' in your thinking, in your knowledge, in your analysis. So with 800 German aircraft in southern France, if Gibraltar is not going to be a viable port, why do you think Corunna or Cadiz or anywhere else on mainland Spain is going to be? I mean do you EVER bother to think anything through?

I've not said that they were going to incorporate them into their national territories. But they won't get out if the Spanish demand it. That's what matters.

Those planes were in France as well. The British still had to be on the mainland. They were not given access to FNA.

warspite1

You said the British were going to possess the islands. But now you play word games with possession and incorporation???? What is the difference?

Here's some of your quotes to help you:

quote:

They would possess them. And good luck to the Spanish getting them out.

What is that possession or 'incorporation'?

quote:

I don't think Franco will agree to British possession of their colonies

quote:

And the British are taking possession of the Canaries, as I've made clear elsewhere. If the Spanish can't get them to leave, that's possession.

.... or is that incorporation????

But regardless of the infantile word games, why would the Spanish demand the Royal Navy leave anyway? They will be happy for the Royal Navy to leave once the war is won - because that means Spain is no longer occupied by the Germans. In the absence of Gibraltar the Royal Navy need the Canaries.

No idea what you are talking about the British being on the mainland. But I'm sure it means something to you, but if you mean British troops on the mainland (and that's not a likely scenario) wouldn't that mean possession so Franco won't let them in anyway? [:D]

I still have no idea why you keep bringing French North Africa into the conversation.

warspite1

Well? Do I get the courtesy of a response or not?

You're the one playing infantile word games. I repeat, they're not going to make the Canaries British territory, but they still won't get out if the Spanish ask them to. That's a reason why the Spanish wouldn't want them in the Canaries when they can accomplish the same thing on the mainland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

Because those democracies are never going to put him back in power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There would be an initial Luftwaffe presence just to eliminate the Spanish AF. After than, they only need an amount sufficient to handle the tiny Spanish army. Those 800 planes are your figure for Gibraltar only. They will only be needed upon the assault on Gibraltar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

AARRRGGHHHH!!!!! But this comes right back to the heart of the scenario and what was said almost from the outset. If you have everyone on the Axis side acting with hindsight and all the Allies unable to react to what is going on, then yes, you can make a case for a German victory. But what the hell is the point of that? Where is the fun, the challenge in that?

Right let's re-do WWII but the British start the war with 20 divisions and the French replace Gamelin with someone who is not fighting WWI and has given the French army an offensive doctrine. Right, that's the war over in 1939. Wow that was interesting wasn't it........

The hypothetical only has to consider alternatives that could be induced by the hypothetical. Does Germany adopting a Med Strategy induce the British to expand their army? How, when they wouldn't even know about it? Does it illuminate the French about Blitzkrieg? How? Again, they don't even know about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This nonsense has got to stop Lemay. You are totally and utterly out of your depth here. Just clueless.

Vichy allowed the Germans the use of airbases in Syria. That was collaboration which was against their neutral status. But you think Vichy was an Axis ally????? Have a look at the US relationship with Vichy. You think they would have that relationship with an Axis ally after 10th December 1941?

Spain gave a degree of repair facilities and safe haven to u-boats - that was collaboration, against their mom-belligerent status - but you think they were German Allies????? Have a look at the US relationship with Spain and the supplies - especially food they gave to save them from famine. Again, you think the US saw them as Axis allies?

Sweden gave the Germans access to Swedish territory to allow troop movement - that was collaboration against their neutral status - you think Sweden was a German ally????

Some countries found themselves in situations that were highly uncomfortable - not wanting to be invaded and so needing to keep Germany sweet, but at the same time, not wanting to cheese the Allies off. They walked a difficult path. As a result there were things done by all countries caught in this situation. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM AXIS ALLIES. To suggest otherwise just shows a total lack of understanding and you are really embarrassing yourself here. Like with the trade embargoes and Japan, you don't even know your own country's WWII history.

At no point have I said that Vichy France was an Axis belligerent. A collaborator is an ally (small "a"). Stop twisting my words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Whoops Curtis Lemay's credibility has finally fallen through the floor..... You consistently credit me with saying things I haven't said. You are thoroughly dishonest.

Where did you get that rail repair in impossible in Spain. No weasel words, or ignoring the post, please show me where I've said rail repair is impossible.

Where did I say that you did? I posted a rhetorical question. Because you certainly were implying it. But, now it's clear, the Germans can repair the rail lines.

quote:

Again you use the most ridiculous of examples - North Africa - to try and make your case in Spain.

Not only is it not a ridiculous example, it's the stake in the heart for the Spanish campaign. Rail repair isn't even necessary. North Africa proves it.

quote:

Minimum needs? For an entire army group.... erm..... To be fair, you obviously know more than the US Military and so I guess its only to be expected you know more than the logistics and supply guys that took the German army to the gates of Moscow and the Caucasus.

No. I only need to know as much as the logistic guys that took the German army to Tobruk and El Alamein.

Tripoli to Tobruk: 1257 km (and that's bypassing the Jabal Akhdar - using it totals 1450km).
Tripoli to El Alamein: 1784 km.
San Sebastian to Gibraltar: 1130 km - shorter that any route above. And nothing in Spain is further than that.


[image]local://upfiles/14086/99D2AF61700F4992970E6E01182157A0.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/14086/6F09F9DD7568441A8810EA213878A3D4.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/14086/F983C9073EF548BBA994E1B74F5C0904.jpg[/image]

I don't know where you get those driving times from. The military travels slow unless it is returning from an FTX - especially for the Class VI items. But in Spain you have to slow down for those hills and mountains plus the tight curves - remember that any grade above 7% is an obstacle. The drivers and crew need rest, sustenance, plus the vehicles need fuel and maintenance. A lot of vehicles will break down, what happens with those? You can't leave them alone. Those convoys need escorts, so those members and vehicles also need to be taken care of.

The web site provided the times. I only wanted the distances. The times are irrelevant. And all the above was true in the Desert as well - they still took Tobruk.

warspite1

Speaking of irrelevant - so is the distance and so is the taking of Tobruk.

Wrong on both. The distance shows that trucks can project supply further than Tripoli to Tobruk (further than any distance in Spain). Taking Tobruk shows that that supply was sufficient to take Tobruk from the Commonwealth (vastly superior to the Spaniards).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Romania and Bulgaria are exactly to the point. You claim that Spain wouldn't flip to the Axis side because of the casualties they would take in an invasion. Yet that's exactly what Romania and Bulgaria did, under the same circumstances (conquest).

warspite1

Again, I don't understand the simplistic nature of your responses. I know less about Bulgaria, but know something of Romania in WWII. So the only reason you think the Romanians switched to the Soviets side, almost four years after joining the Axis, was because under the Germans they took heavy casualties? I mean.... I don't know where to even start with this.

But you think Spain (1940) and Romania (1940-1944) are operating "under the same circumstances"? Why? Please provide a paragraph just setting out how the situations are the same.

You're question was answered above (conquest). I'll try to rephrase it: Romania started out on the Axis side. It fought in Russia, taking thousands of losses to those Russians. The Russians went on to conquer Romania and occupy it. Romania then switched to the Russian side. This would be no different than Spain taking losses to the Germans as the Germans conquered Spain, and then Spain switching to the German side. Clearly, the examples of Romania and Bulgaria show that taking losses from and being conquered by one side does NOT prevent one from switching to that other side. In the case of weak nations, it might even make it probable: they bend with the wind.

warspite1

Okay so you are saying the same circumstances apply to Romania and Spain because they were conquered (although in Spain's case that hasn't happened, but will be, so that's by the by). And that's it........ So to be clear, there are no other considerations that need to be taken into account when trying to determine what Spain's response would have been to an invasion by Germany? Really? You genuinely don't understand that Spain and Romania's position in 1940 and 1944 are so very different on so many levels?

I'm saying the circumstance of losing thousands to and being invaded and conquered by - then switching to that other side is the same.

warspite1

Yes I know WHAT you are saying. I have no idea why you would think its appropriate. I mean in World War II Britain and Japan were in exactly the same circumstances weren't they. They were both islands and both had an empire. There. Exactly the same [8|]

Clearly, these examples show that taking losses and being invaded and conquered is no impediment to joining the conquering side.

So, German conquest of Spain would not be an impediment to making a deal with the Axis. And, since Franco has no where else to turn, why wouldn't he make that deal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Do you know anything about the taking of Tobruk? Clearly not, but that is not important. What is important:

Why are you fixated on Tobruk - you know this was nowhere near their goal and that Tobruk is in Libya right?

So if the Germans had enough supply to take Tobruk from the green 2nd South African Division, that proves all your arguments about supply.... in Spain?????

It proves how far supply can be projected by truck from a supply head.

quote:

Did Rommel have an army group in Libya? No, so that is not a comparison - I ask again, what does this one isolated case have to do with Spain?

Again, each division has its own supply assets - including supply trucks. So, it's irrelevant how much force is being supplied by truck, so long as the supply head has enough for all. And, it would, since that head is in France and part of the European rail net.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Back to Greece:

Note the third map of the Greek campaign I've now provided.

Note the two maps of routes from Athens to Albania that don't go through Salonika.

Of course, I'm going to be told that those routes didn't exist in 1941. But the first map counters that. You can trace the arrows back from Athens all the way to Monastir. There is no way a path from Salonika to the Albanian front can be traced without crossing that line of arrows.

This shows, once again, how easy it is to misunderstand a snippet of text in a book.

[image]local://upfiles/14086/810C239344834442987E2DA50B46E1F4.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/14086/81218BDC8A3846029A4FE2574ED24CDD.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/14086/7BAA36048EB94E4AA4F28FC49640792C.jpg[/image]

warspite1

Uh oh, the maps are out. Right, third request. Please tell me which bit of the professionals of the US army saying the following was taken out of context by me:

"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".

Which bit did I mis-understand or take out of context?

It's only a single sentence without any context whatsoever.

And the maps prove that it can't mean what you think it means. The maps clearly show that the Germans moved from Monastir to Athens without going through Salonika. So, there has to be a path from Athens to the Albanian border if there is one from Salonika.

QED

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I've told you my thoughts on Vichy: The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied. And I'll ask you again: Why would the Germans ever agree to stay out of Vichy if that wasn't the French purpose of Vichy? And I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in that till you answer, because there isn't any answer, except that that was the purpose of Vichy!!!

warspite1

And still you won't do the simplest of things. This is your scenario, this is your case to make. All I've asked you to do on a number of occasions now is to provide an outline, a timeline, of how a 'Vichy' Spain comes about. Show us who you think instigates the idea? What does it seek to achieve? Why is it accepted by both sides?

Truly, if your explanation for the reasoning behind Vichy France and it's creation is "The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied" then I suggest you have much reading to do on the subject before you can even begin to talk about 'Vichy' Spain.

As for the question - apologies I don't even recall you asking me the question. You may delight in "rubbing my nose in it" but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am always more than happy to answer any question. Before doing so however, you would need to let me know what it means please. I don't really understand why you are asking why the Germans would agree to stay out of Vichy. Are you sure this is not a question for someone else? Ranger Joe perhaps? I genuinely can't remember the background to this or where it comes from at all.

warspite1

Well? I thought you were going to "rub my nose in it" (whatever that means). So when I asked you to explain what your question meant, so that I could answer it, you decide not to respond....

So do you want me to answer this question or not?

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy France wasn't to keep the Germans out of an enclave of their country, why would the Germans have agreed to keep out of it? Clearly, no access to Vichy territory is a bad deal for the Germans. The French must have made it a vital provision of Vichy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This says much. You think its been a good debate about supply?

Yes. And you should pay attention. You could learn something.

quote:

Well let's see what you brought to the party:

- You've got your facts about rail supply totally and utterly wrong because you used a wiki article on 21st century US rail roads to 'prove' what the war-ravaged Spanish rail system in 1940 could provide and concluded that the rail system could handle all the German requirements and more....

It was 1940 rail. Someone said that European rail was somewhat less robust. But it still showed that the European rail lines could provide an enormous stream of supply. I never mentioned the Spanish rail system.

quote:

This is ridiculous. It's obvious that a rail line can handle a vast amount of supplies. More than enough for the action required in Spain. Remember, Spain has a tiny army. That means a tiny amount of combat needed to eliminate them.

Every urban area has marshalling yards where trains can be held while unloaded. Of course such locations would be behind front lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

In addition you have effectively rubbished the professional supply officers of the German army who planned Felix, as a bunch of amateurs (you've written off and dismissed just about everything they've said about going to war - even with Spain as an ally). As an example their concerns about the state of the roads for the 1,200kn march were "barely adequate; narrow, winding and laid through passes 2,000 metres high, where ice and fog would present difficulties. Wagner reckoned with major demands on drivers and equipment (particularly engines, tyres and brakes)..."

But you know better apparently and said:

quote:

See the physical map of Spain I attached. Overlay it with the Spanish path shown and you'll see that the mountainous regions are bypassed. There are hills, but no mountains. The mountains are not continuous across Spain, only in spots. So it is easy for supply columns to bypass them.

What did those stoopid German officers who surveyed the ground know anyway? If only they had access to a google map.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

You also effectively state the US army team that wrote a study of the Balkan Campaign are a bunch of incompetents...

You're interpretation of an out of context snippet is what is in question.

quote:

...who don't have the skills you do in being able to do a google map search [8|] and you've 'proved' supply was possible from Athens because:

a) you've produced maps with a lot of arrows of German forces heading south.....

Yep. If the Germans could do it why couldn't the Greeks?

quote:

b) you've produced modern day maps showing roads between Athens and Albania.

Again, yes. And the map with the arrows on it follow those roads.

quote:

But as ever, in your simplistic and myopic view, you've given no consideration to the distance from Athens to Albania (compared to Salonika to Albania) and whether supply considerations could also have been affected by availability of trucks or rail lines. Do you know the Greek logistical situation in 1940? Has that even crossed your mind? There were 14 divisions of the 1st Greek Army to supply. That is a lot of provisions daily. But you see that sort of detail is just unimportant to you. So long as you prove there was a road between Athens and Albania in 2020 then all other considerations - including the conclusions of the US Army - are simply not worth considering.

About 500km or so. Well within truck supply distance. And there was a rail line to the north for part of the way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am not sure if you believe what you are writing or just attention seeking. Genuinely, your comments are becoming so bizarre the more this goes on.

a) where is the evidence that Britain were going to do that? Perhaps you think they possessed Iceland? or Crete?
b) how many territories were possessed by Britain, France, America as they came back at the Germans in WWII?
c) Every post you just make yourself look more and more 'limited' in your thinking, in your knowledge, in your analysis. So with 800 German aircraft in southern France, if Gibraltar is not going to be a viable port, why do you think Corunna or Cadiz or anywhere else on mainland Spain is going to be? I mean do you EVER bother to think anything through?

I've not said that they were going to incorporate them into their national territories. But they won't get out if the Spanish demand it. That's what matters.

Those planes were in France as well. The British still had to be on the mainland. They were not given access to FNA.

warspite1

You said the British were going to possess the islands. But now you play word games with possession and incorporation???? What is the difference?

Here's some of your quotes to help you:

quote:

They would possess them. And good luck to the Spanish getting them out.

What is that possession or 'incorporation'?

quote:

I don't think Franco will agree to British possession of their colonies

quote:

And the British are taking possession of the Canaries, as I've made clear elsewhere. If the Spanish can't get them to leave, that's possession.

.... or is that incorporation????

But regardless of the infantile word games, why would the Spanish demand the Royal Navy leave anyway? They will be happy for the Royal Navy to leave once the war is won - because that means Spain is no longer occupied by the Germans. In the absence of Gibraltar the Royal Navy need the Canaries.

No idea what you are talking about the British being on the mainland. But I'm sure it means something to you, but if you mean British troops on the mainland (and that's not a likely scenario) wouldn't that mean possession so Franco won't let them in anyway? [:D]

I still have no idea why you keep bringing French North Africa into the conversation.

warspite1

Well? Do I get the courtesy of a response or not?

You're the one playing infantile word games. I repeat, they're not going to make the Canaries British territory, but they still won't get out if the Spanish ask them to. That's a reason why the Spanish wouldn't want them in the Canaries when they can accomplish the same thing on the mainland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I've told you my thoughts on Vichy: The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied. And I'll ask you again: Why would the Germans ever agree to stay out of Vichy if that wasn't the French purpose of Vichy? And I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in that till you answer, because there isn't any answer, except that that was the purpose of Vichy!!!

warspite1

And still you won't do the simplest of things. This is your scenario, this is your case to make. All I've asked you to do on a number of occasions now is to provide an outline, a timeline, of how a 'Vichy' Spain comes about. Show us who you think instigates the idea? What does it seek to achieve? Why is it accepted by both sides?

Truly, if your explanation for the reasoning behind Vichy France and it's creation is "The rationale for the French was to preserve an enclave in France that wasn't German occupied" then I suggest you have much reading to do on the subject before you can even begin to talk about 'Vichy' Spain.

As for the question - apologies I don't even recall you asking me the question. You may delight in "rubbing my nose in it" but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am always more than happy to answer any question. Before doing so however, you would need to let me know what it means please. I don't really understand why you are asking why the Germans would agree to stay out of Vichy. Are you sure this is not a question for someone else? Ranger Joe perhaps? I genuinely can't remember the background to this or where it comes from at all.

warspite1

Well? I thought you were going to "rub my nose in it" (whatever that means). So when I asked you to explain what your question meant, so that I could answer it, you decide not to respond....

So do you want me to answer this question or not?

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy France wasn't to keep the Germans out of an enclave of their country, why would the Germans have agreed to keep out of it? Clearly, no access to Vichy territory is a bad deal for the Germans. The French must have made it a vital provision of Vichy!

warspite1

As I said, I've got no idea where this particular argument came from and to be honest, having read your comment above, its not something even worth giving a moment's consideration to. You think the PURPOSE of Vichy France was to keep Germans out of Vichy - and then there's some weird question about the German's agreeing to stay our of Vichy or some old cobblers.... I can't make head nor tail of it to be honest and I'm pretty sure it didn't come from me.

Re Vichy generally, erm.... as I've said to you previously, you really need to get yourself down to the library and dig out some books.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

Because those democracies are never going to put him back in power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

- In addition you have effectively rubbished the professional supply officers of the German army who planned Felix, as a bunch of amateurs (you've written off and dismissed just about everything they've said about going to war - even with Spain as an ally). As an example their concerns about the state of the roads for the 1,200kn march were "barely adequate; narrow, winding and laid through passes 2,000 metres high, where ice and fog would present difficulties. Wagner reckoned with major demands on drivers and equipment (particularly engines, tyres and brakes)..."

But you know better apparently and said:

quote:

See the physical map of Spain I attached. Overlay it with the Spanish path shown and you'll see that the mountainous regions are bypassed. There are hills, but no mountains. The mountains are not continuous across Spain, only in spots. So it is easy for supply columns to bypass them.

What did those stoopid German officers who surveyed the ground know anyway? If only they had access to a google map.....

Are you saying that mountains have been ground to flatland since WWII? Otherwise, that map has to be pretty telling. Clearly there are paths around the mountains.

warspite1

Well the German logistics guys said what they said (as per the above). Now, I have a choice. I can believe what the German planners stated in their plans for Spain

OR

I can believe a person who relies on google maps to tell him more than professional German Army planners and logistics guys.

Mmmmmmm..... now which shall I choose????

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I just think you are still looking at this as a simple wargame. No logistics required. The whole point of this scenario from a German perspective is that it will put them in a better position than they were in in June 1941 historically. If not then its no good. The better start position in Turkey (if indeed that is achievable) will be squandered it they don't manage this properly.

And if they possess Gibraltar, Suez, and the Turkish border with the Russians they will be in a much better position.

The whole thing comes down to just how tough the Spanish and Turkish operations are going to be. You're trying to build them up into supermen. They aren't.

warspite1

....and you re-appear on the thread just to take us right back to where we started....[8|]

If, if, if..... and I've asked you to make a proper case, and you not only refuse to do so, but what little effort you have put in has been largely based on incorrect information, questionable - and in some cases frankly bizarre - assumptions, and a refusal to believe the professionals of the German army (though you believe them when it suits you).

Re the bit in bold, once again a complete lie that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. First request.

quote:

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain...

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Franco has the Commonwealth, plus most of South, Central, and North America to turn to. Why would he turn to the country that betrayed him for help?

Because those democracies are never going to put him back in power.

How about the dictatorships?

quote:

But you state that the United States of America would never put a Free Spanish government back into power if it conquered Spain? What would the United States of America do? Annex Spain? [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I just think you are still looking at this as a simple wargame. No logistics required. The whole point of this scenario from a German perspective is that it will put them in a better position than they were in in June 1941 historically. If not then its no good. The better start position in Turkey (if indeed that is achievable) will be squandered it they don't manage this properly.

And if they possess Gibraltar, Suez, and the Turkish border with the Russians they will be in a much better position.

The whole thing comes down to just how tough the Spanish and Turkish operations are going to be. You're trying to build them up into supermen. They aren't.

warspite1

....and you re-appear on the thread just to take us right back to where we started....[8|]

If, if, if..... and I've asked you to make a proper case, and you not only refuse to do so, but what little effort you have put in has been largely based on incorrect information, questionable - and in some cases frankly bizarre - assumptions, and a refusal to believe the professionals of the German army (though you believe them when it suits you).

Re the bit in bold, once again a complete lie that really shows you and your debating style and the way you have conducted this debate. Now, if I am wrong and you are right, please provide the post that suggests I've said that they are anything like supermen and/or the Germans can't beat them and/or they will hold the Germans up for an inordinate length of time. In other words Lemay, put your money where your mouth is and put up or shut up because I am fed up with you mis-representing what I say. First request.

quote:

The rate you have the German army going through supply trucks, oil and ammunition just to take Spain...

Supermen!

Reality: The supply cost of taking Spain will be directly proportionate to the size and quality of the Spanish Army. To review: Tiny and puny. The supply costs will be light because of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There would be an initial Luftwaffe presence just to eliminate the Spanish AF. After than, they only need an amount sufficient to handle the tiny Spanish army. Those 800 planes are your figure for Gibraltar only. They will only be needed upon the assault on Gibraltar.

warspite1

You've already been told the source for the 800 aircraft is not my figure - 800 aircraft plus 3,000 vehicles (incl. 3 heavy and 3 light AA battalions) was agreed by the Luftwaffe following a meeting between the CoS of the VIII Air Corps and the staff of XLIX Corps on the 16 November 1940.

And why don't you ever bother to think things through? If those aircraft were needed for Gibraltar in a Spain friendly scenario (which included neutralising the RN) then clearly some of those aircraft will be needed during the Spanish campaign if the RN try and provide support through NGS or supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am not sure if you believe what you are writing or just attention seeking. Genuinely, your comments are becoming so bizarre the more this goes on.

a) where is the evidence that Britain were going to do that? Perhaps you think they possessed Iceland? or Crete?
b) how many territories were possessed by Britain, France, America as they came back at the Germans in WWII?
c) Every post you just make yourself look more and more 'limited' in your thinking, in your knowledge, in your analysis. So with 800 German aircraft in southern France, if Gibraltar is not going to be a viable port, why do you think Corunna or Cadiz or anywhere else on mainland Spain is going to be? I mean do you EVER bother to think anything through?

I've not said that they were going to incorporate them into their national territories. But they won't get out if the Spanish demand it. That's what matters.

Those planes were in France as well. The British still had to be on the mainland. They were not given access to FNA.

warspite1

You said the British were going to possess the islands. But now you play word games with possession and incorporation???? What is the difference?

Here's some of your quotes to help you:

quote:

They would possess them. And good luck to the Spanish getting them out.

What is that possession or 'incorporation'?

quote:

I don't think Franco will agree to British possession of their colonies

quote:

And the British are taking possession of the Canaries, as I've made clear elsewhere. If the Spanish can't get them to leave, that's possession.

.... or is that incorporation????

But regardless of the infantile word games, why would the Spanish demand the Royal Navy leave anyway? They will be happy for the Royal Navy to leave once the war is won - because that means Spain is no longer occupied by the Germans. In the absence of Gibraltar the Royal Navy need the Canaries.

No idea what you are talking about the British being on the mainland. But I'm sure it means something to you, but if you mean British troops on the mainland (and that's not a likely scenario) wouldn't that mean possession so Franco won't let them in anyway? [:D]

I still have no idea why you keep bringing French North Africa into the conversation.

warspite1

Well? Do I get the courtesy of a response or not?

You're the one playing infantile word games. I repeat, they're not going to make the Canaries British territory, but they still won't get out if the Spanish ask them to. That's a reason why the Spanish wouldn't want them in the Canaries when they can accomplish the same thing on the mainland.

There you go, insulting someone again. [X(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

AARRRGGHHHH!!!!! But this comes right back to the heart of the scenario and what was said almost from the outset. If you have everyone on the Axis side acting with hindsight and all the Allies unable to react to what is going on, then yes, you can make a case for a German victory. But what the hell is the point of that? Where is the fun, the challenge in that?

Right let's re-do WWII but the British start the war with 20 divisions and the French replace Gamelin with someone who is not fighting WWI and has given the French army an offensive doctrine. Right, that's the war over in 1939. Wow that was interesting wasn't it........

The hypothetical only has to consider alternatives that could be induced by the hypothetical. Does Germany adopting a Med Strategy induce the British to expand their army? How, when they wouldn't even know about it? Does it illuminate the French about Blitzkrieg? How? Again, they don't even know about it.

warspite1

And your irrelevant answer had exactly what to do with my point??????

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

There would be an initial Luftwaffe presence just to eliminate the Spanish AF. After than, they only need an amount sufficient to handle the tiny Spanish army. Those 800 planes are your figure for Gibraltar only. They will only be needed upon the assault on Gibraltar.

warspite1

You've already been told the source for the 800 aircraft is not my figure - 800 aircraft plus 3,000 vehicles (incl. 3 heavy and 3 light AA battalions) was agreed by the Luftwaffe following a meeting between the CoS of the VIII Air Corps and the staff of XLIX Corps on the 16 November 1940.

And why don't you ever bother to think things through? If those aircraft were needed for Gibraltar in a Spain friendly scenario (which included neutralising the RN) then clearly some of those aircraft will be needed during the Spanish campaign if the RN try and provide support through NGS or supply.

Some of them. Not 800. The 800, assuming we accept your figure as gospel, would only be required for the actual assault. Gibraltar is a very small target. How long can it last? And it's not gospel, since France 1940 has caused a reassessment of British 1940's combat strength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

AARRRGGHHHH!!!!! But this comes right back to the heart of the scenario and what was said almost from the outset. If you have everyone on the Axis side acting with hindsight and all the Allies unable to react to what is going on, then yes, you can make a case for a German victory. But what the hell is the point of that? Where is the fun, the challenge in that?

Right let's re-do WWII but the British start the war with 20 divisions and the French replace Gamelin with someone who is not fighting WWI and has given the French army an offensive doctrine. Right, that's the war over in 1939. Wow that was interesting wasn't it........

The hypothetical only has to consider alternatives that could be induced by the hypothetical. Does Germany adopting a Med Strategy induce the British to expand their army? How, when they wouldn't even know about it? Does it illuminate the French about Blitzkrieg? How? Again, they don't even know about it.

warspite1

And your irrelevant answer had exactly what to do with my point??????

It's precisely relevant. The alternatives you suggested would not be induced by the hypothetical. Therefore, the hypothetical doesn't have to consider them.