quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

warspite1

The problems with supply will not just relate to beating the Spanish army. Remember the Germans have to take Gibraltar at the end of a very long and precarious supply chain - after all that is the purpose of this adventure.

However, re the bit in bold, this still stands as once again you've made a completely untrue statement 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. Second request.

My part in bold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I've told you exactly the source of the 800, I've told you the publication and the primary source - and you still say that. The reassessment following France 1940?? So you don't understand that May/June 1940 is before November 1940?

Of course its only some of the 800. Who said otherwise?? It's you that said all 800 would only be needed for Gibraltar.

So you don't believe any primary sources now? You are looking increasingly desperate in a bid to cover up for your lack of knowledge. Well done Lemay. Well done indeed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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?

What dictatorships are going to be controlling Spain if the Allies win?

A Spanish one. The Free Spanish one since Franco would flee Spain.

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|]

That's exactly what they would install: A democracy. That leaves Franco out in the cold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I've told you exactly the source of the 800, I've told you the publication and the primary source - and you still say that. The reassessment following France 1940?? So you don't understand that May/June 1940 is before November 1940?

Of course its only some of the 800. Who said otherwise?? It's you that said all 800 would only be needed for Gibraltar.

So you don't believe any primary sources now? You are looking increasingly desperate in a bid to cover up for your lack of knowledge. Well done Lemay. Well done indeed.

Let's take it at it's face value

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Once again, and I repeat, why would the Spanish ask the British to leave before the war is won? If the war isn't won then Spain isn't going to be free and the Government in Exile isn't going home to Madrid anytime soon.

So let's be clear:

- Did Denmark refuse the British and Americans use of Iceland because they never thought they would be able to evict them?
- Did Greece refuse the British the use of Crete because they never thought they would be able to evict them?

What is so special about Spain (apart from the fact you've said something and can't ever be wrong)? Please try and think things through when responding and provide a well constructed, thought out response as to what the motivations would be.

For the nth time: Franco is a fascist dictator. He is going to be suspicious of the Allies' attitude towards him.

warspite1

What the....? And what was Metaxas - a liberal democrat? [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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????

Remember, he is using modern maps and not maps from 1940. Even the Spanish did not have good maps for their own country.

What difference does it make when a PHYSICAL map is made?! Has the geography of Spain changed since 1940?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I've told you exactly the source of the 800, I've told you the publication and the primary source - and you still say that. The reassessment following France 1940?? So you don't understand that May/June 1940 is before November 1940?

Of course its only some of the 800. Who said otherwise?? It's you that said all 800 would only be needed for Gibraltar.

So you don't believe any primary sources now? You are looking increasingly desperate in a bid to cover up for your lack of knowledge. Well done Lemay. Well done indeed.

Let's take it at it's face value: Clearly, the Germans thought they had sufficient shells and etc. for the Gibraltar operation. And, for sure, Gibraltar is worth it! The payback for taking it would be huge in the Desert War.

It's the conquest of Spain that is new. And that army remains tiny and low quality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
What the....? And what was Metaxas - a liberal democrat?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winston Churchill
If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
What the....? And what was Metaxas - a liberal democrat?

The book RFalvo69 mentioned about the Greece affair starts with "After preaching for years about the need to fight against the decadent Democratic, Jewish Plutocracies, choose a fellow dictatorship as the victim of his own blitzkried"

As for the Allies feelings toward Franco, the Coalition included a series of nice individuals, from Stalin to Trujillo, so I think their reaction to a German invasion would be something like this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winston Churchill
If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
....

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Whether or not German equipment such as the Mark IV would have enabled the Italian Army to fight longer and more effectively on the Axis side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Whether or not German equipment such as the Mark IV would have enabled the Italian Army to fight longer and more effectively on the Axis side.

No. And I ever wonder how this came up.

The problems in the Italian Army were endemic and not just limited to the equipment. Bad leadership from top down, for example. An incompetent "supreme leader" (Mussolini), incompetent High Command, incompetent generals, down to incompetent NCOs etc. Sure, you could find the stray competent person - who could only suffer from depression given what he saw around him.

Also, Mussolini wasted Italy's already meager forces by chasing too many dogs. Having better equipment would only have meant chasing too many dogs with better equipment. A Panzer IV in Italian hands would have meant a Panzer IV lost in one of too many fronts due to poor leadership, preparation and motivation.

The SS trained fanatically. The "Camicie Nere" (Black-shirts, CC. NN.) didn't train a lot because "their fighting prowess came from their fanatical adoration of the Duce." You can't go around something like this.

When the British launched "Operation Compass" the Italian forts they met at the frontline were "unable to support each other" and fell one by one. Being better equipped couldn't fix such an incompetence.

And just remember: the Greek Army, led with minimum competence and equipped with the same or inferior weapons, was winning the war against the Italian one. This tells you all you need to know about the "endemic incompetence" of the Italian leadership at any level.

True, Italy also deployed elite units, exp. the Alpine troops. But the "Alpini" alone could not win the war against Greece, and in Russia they were a drop in the ocean (their biggest achievement was to guarantee the retreat of a vast number of other Italian soldiers). Other troops in Russia initially fought well, but crumbled when faced by a determined and well led counteroffensive.

And the Italian troops in North Africa fought well after months and years of combat experience along with Rommel and the Germans.

TL;DR: The Italian Army needed to be reformed from top to down, with the equipment being only part of the problem. If you give a sword to someone totally incompetent you do not create a warrior overnight: he will always lose anyway against someone who actually knows how to use a knife. And, of course, under the fascist rule, thinking of sending home all the incompetent people who had gained their place via fanaticism to the party and/or sycophantism was, for all practical means, impossible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Nice faux anger there Lemay. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Second Request

quote:

However, you did say:

quote:

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

There, remember? So instead of talking in riddles why not make clear what you did say?

quote:

First things first:

a) what did you mean exactly when you said that Vichy France was an Axis ally (post 967)?

quote:

c) You've raised ally (small 'a') as being a thing. Where is there a distinction between capital A and small a?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Let's say a division contains one truck. Lets say that division needs one full truck load per day to maintain supply levels.

If that truck can do a round trip of 200 miles in a day then if the division is 200 miles away then happy days. Luvverlllly jubbllyyy and everyone's a winner.

Now.

Let's say the division advances. It is now 400 miles away but it still needs a full truck load daily.

Do you see any problem here? No? Well I'll explain, firstly the division now hasn't got enough trucks and needs to call on a corps reserve.

The supply still gets there in two days. So, operations slow down, but they still get done eventually.

warspite1

HALLEUJAH!!!!!!

He's got the point everybody!!!! Curtis Lemay has actually understood the point. Yes, supply issues affect operations. The effect of the issues will be dependent on many things of course. Why was that so difficult for you to accept????? Wow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Nice faux anger there Lemay. Now, once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Second Request

You're so desperate to justify your vile insult. Despicable.

Yes. The Italians and Japanese were Axis Allies - before they became BELLIGERENTS! Big difference between an Ally and a belligerent!

quote:

However, you did say:

quote:

Vichy France (now an Axis ally)

There, remember? So instead of talking in riddles why not make clear what you did say?

Note the small 'a'.

quote:

First things first:

a) what did you mean exactly when you said that Vichy France was an Axis ally (post 967)?

The same judgement of them that the Allies made of them after the war!!! Collaborators!!!!

quote:

c) You've raised ally (small 'a') as being a thing. Where is there a distinction between capital A and small a?

Official vs. de facto.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

All the above applies to Tobruk as well. The example clearly shows that whatever the variables were, it was adequate to take Tobruk. It's really that simple.

warspite1

Please, enough with the Tobruk fixation. Yes we know there was enough supply to take Tobruk from the green South Africans. If only you could understand that, in itself it means and proves nothing other than Rommel had enough supply at that time to take Tobruk. It's like living in the Twilight Zone....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I refuse to believe that the roads in North Africa were in better condition than the roads in Spain. Spain had had a civil war years before. North Africa was undergoing a current war. And the tanks had gotten heavier since as well.

warspite1

No, we know that. You won't believe the Germany Army from primary source material, ...

quote:

you won't believe the US Army study...you won't believe anything I suggest, but we are supposed to take as read what you believe. Sure......that's equitable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Let's say a division contains one truck. Lets say that division needs one full truck load per day to maintain supply levels.

If that truck can do a round trip of 200 miles in a day then if the division is 200 miles away then happy days. Luvverlllly jubbllyyy and everyone's a winner.

Now.

Let's say the division advances. It is now 400 miles away but it still needs a full truck load daily.

Do you see any problem here? No? Well I'll explain, firstly the division now hasn't got enough trucks and needs to call on a corps reserve.

The supply still gets there in two days. So, operations slow down, but they still get done eventually.

warspite1

HALLEUJAH!!!!!!

He's got the point everybody!!!! Curtis Lemay has actually understood the point. Yes, supply issues affect operations. The effect of the issues will be dependent on many things of course. Why was that so difficult for you to accept????? Wow.

When was I missing that point? There was a long supply build up prior to Gazala as well. Tobruk still fell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

All the above applies to Tobruk as well. The example clearly shows that whatever the variables were, it was adequate to take Tobruk. It's really that simple.

warspite1

Please, enough with the Tobruk fixation. Yes we know there was enough supply to take Tobruk from the green South Africans. If only you could understand that, in itself it means and proves nothing other than Rommel had enough supply at that time to take Tobruk. It's like living in the Twilight Zone....

No. It proves that the truck supply path from Tripoli to Tobruk was sufficient to take Tobruk. Even the South Africans were better than the Spaniards. And Rommel fought through the entire 8th Army to get to Tobruk, not just the South Africans. The task dwarfs the Spanish task.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I refuse to believe that the roads in North Africa were in better condition than the roads in Spain. Spain had had a civil war years before. North Africa was undergoing a current war. And the tanks had gotten heavier since as well.

warspite1

No, we know that. You won't believe the Germany Army from primary source material, ...

Different circumstances.

quote:

you won't believe the US Army study...you won't believe anything I suggest, but we are supposed to take as read what you believe. Sure......that's equitable.

I don't believe your interpretation, because it's so obviously wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

All the above applies to Tobruk as well. The example clearly shows that whatever the variables were, it was adequate to take Tobruk. It's really that simple.

warspite1

Please, enough with the Tobruk fixation. Yes we know there was enough supply to take Tobruk from the green South Africans. If only you could understand that, in itself it means and proves nothing other than Rommel had enough supply at that time to take Tobruk. It's like living in the Twilight Zone....

No. It proves that the truck supply path from Tripoli to Tobruk was sufficient to take Tobruk. Even the South Africans were better than the Spaniards. And Rommel fought through the entire 8th Army to get to Tobruk, not just the South Africans. The task dwarfs the Spanish task.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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

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

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

But how can that sentence be taken out of context or mis-understood? Look at it this way:

A US military study confirms that supply for the Greek 1st Army was centred on the port of Salonika. What does that mean? Could that have been the sole port of supply?, the primary port? What? Well they go onto say that if Salonika was taken then that would cut off their supply. That would suggest that Salonika was either the sole supply port or the one that provided the vast majority of supply doesn't it?

Let's be honest here. I don't know. You don't know. So I've used this US military study as my supporting evidence. What do you do? Do you ask to see the military study? Have you shown the slightest interest in the study? No.

Okay, so why are you so keen to rubbish such a source without even seeing it yourself? Presumably you do that because you have evidence yourself that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? But you don't. You don't have any evidence from any military sources - whether Greek, British, German or Italian. You don't have any 3rd party sources either.

So what convinces you that the US military guys are total idiots who have no clue what they are putting their name to? Well, you have some maps from a WWII Atlas and from Wiki.... And that shows there was at least two roads that led from Athens that could take supply to the Albanian front - or at least pretty close....

You've also shown the route the Germans took in their charge south through Greece. Again, you've decided that if the Germans could move south along these routes, that must mean the Greeks supplied 1st Army through them - despite what those total bozos in the US Army think.

So effectively because you think you've supplied the could, that means the Greeks did. But you don't know that. The US military seems to believe they didn't. But let's stay with the Greeks could for a minute. Could they? I've told you about the distance between Athens and Albania (as opposed to Salonika and Albania). It's clear - both in distance and terrain - why Salonika would be more likely to be used.

We are talking about the supply of 14 divisions of a Greek Army. That's a lot of supply on a daily basis. Have you confirmed the Greek motor transport situation in 1941? Have you confirmed what rail links there were then? Do you know what amount of transport would be required, and over how many days, to get the same amount of supply to the Albanian front from each source? You see, there are lots of elements to the could. You providing a couple of maps doesn't really wash does it?

Now, how about you stop playing around with silly maps and actually provide some evidence that the Greek 1st Army was supplied from Athens? Until you do, I'll stick with what the US army professionals have concluded. Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

As I said, I've got no idea where this particular argument came from and to be honest, having read your 'clarification' 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 out 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. If you can make clear what you are asking and what I've said to make you even ask that question of me then I'll take another look.

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.

I'll ask again: If the purpose of Vichy wasn't to create an enclave within France that they Germans stayed out of, then why would the Germans agree to such a condition!!!!!!!

quote:

My challenge to you to set out how you think a 'Vichy' Spain comes about remains current. Please answer fully. Who would propose it,

Franco.

quote:

and under what circumstances?

After conquest of Spain by the Germans.

quote:

What would it seek to achieve?

Restoration of Franco to control of Spain and a protected enclave within Spain that the Germans stay out of.

quote:

Why would both parties be happy with it? What would it look like?

Franco gets restored to power in Spain and Germany gets Gibraltar and a peaceful Spain (which was all they wanted).

warspite1

I'll respond to this later when I've stopped laughing.

Edit:
Started to respond (even though I said I wouldn't do your job for you) and then thought better of it. I've asked for a proper case to be made and you produced what? four lines and less than 50 words.....

As I said in a previous post, you actually seem to delight in debating in such a fashion. It doesn't do you any favours.

But fine, but I'm still not going to do your job for you. If you can't actually be bothered, then nor can I.

What you have high level 'outlined' is laughable. You haven't got a clue what Vichy was about, but despite that you think it would be great if the Spanish had one too and you come up with those four lines.

Try again - but this time how about you make some effort? Read about Vichy first, understand what that was about and then see if you can really apply this to Spain.