quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So can you give me some (quality) sources that call Sweden, Spain and Vichy France German allies please?

For Vichy France, I did: Petain was sentenced to life, and his cronies were labeled collaborators.

quote:

Once again, show me where you used the term belligerents to describe the Italians and Japanese. Fourth Request

Where would I have needed to? Are you seriously claiming that there is no difference between members of the Axis who have not entered the war, and those that have? Japan is an Axis Ally (large "A") once she signs into the alliance. She doesn't, historically, become a belligerent till 12/7/1941. Same with Italy: Ally upon signing up. Belligerent upon invading France.

You remain so desperate to justify your vile insult. Here's a suggestion: Stop hurling insults!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?

warspite1

Why do you have to be so black and white to the point of absurdity????

Why would ALL Spanish roads go through mountains? Please show me where I so much as suggested such a load of nonsense?

Edit: Sorry this seems to be a response to RangerJoe but had some of my posts. My comment is in response to your last comment only.

Your 'study' insists that the German supply paths must go through the mountains. So, there must be no roads around those mountains. So, it's saying the Spanish are idiots.

warspite1

Again why do act like a 5-year old?

quote:

Why would the Germans do that? you just make yourself look rather silly with that sort of comment.

For the last time these are primary source documents from German logistic guys that studied the terrain (you know actually studied it rather than look at some poxy google map). The German planned route obviously used existing Spanish roads. The Germans worried about part of the road network (as described previously).

And so, despite the quality of the book and the source materials that support its findings, you would rather just ignore it because it doesn't fit with your in depth 'staff study' that proved the Germans would blitz through Spain and Turkey. you prefer to rely on a board war game and a few google maps.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

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.

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. Third request.

I didn't say you called the "supermen". I said you were building them up into supermen. And that's exactly what the post I bolded was attempting to do.

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.

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. Fourth request.

For the third time, see the post I bolded.

warspite1

Getting monotonous now. I've answered the point you bolded more than adequately.

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.

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. Fifth request.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Check the map that goes with that one. Somehow, the Germans took that very route in 1941!!

Yes, there was a ferry there before the bridge, so a one-time crossing would have been feasible. Are you suggesting that it is as easy to run supply operations over ferry as over a bridge?

Apparently it was for the Germans!

warspite1

So let's be clear what you are saying here.

When you talk about 'the Germans' taking that route, you haven't once given any more detail. The Germans you refer to was a motorised infantry regiment. This unit was deployed as part of the operation to cut off the 1st Greek Army's escape route and then, loaded with as much provisions as they could carry, headed south.

You equate that, with a Greek supply effort for its 1st Army?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.

warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.

It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.

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

[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.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

warspite1

My goodness!!

What is wrong with you. Are you actually trying to be wrong on every point?

quote:

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving.

Why don't you stop spouting rubbish that betrays you are totally and utterly out of your depth and try reading some history? Try reading something, anything about the Greco-Italian war and you will understand how thoroughly absurd that comment is.

quote:

The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater.

Oh dear..... Please re-read that and come back when you've realised what a total load of rubbish you've spoken. If you can't then I'll point you in the right direction - but I'm a fair man and so will give you a chance.

quote:

Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

Do you even understand basic English????? Read my post again. There is a difference between Could and Did. Yes? When you've found out what the Greeks did then you can provide that evidence here. Until then I'll listen to the professionals in the US Army who have given their understand of what the Greeks Did during their study of the Balkan Campaign.

And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......

Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More lies to hide your total lack of knowledge....

So we were talking about Spain at this point and indeed you said:

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.

Which part of that comment was you not referring to the Spanish rail system being able to more than handle anything required by the Germans? Reprehensible behaviour on your part Lemay.

Did I really need to state that the Spanish lines would have to be repaired - just as they have to be in every military campaign?!?! And, even in your quote above, I still do not mention the Spanish rail system. The French rail system will get the supplies to the rail head at the border and then trucks can deliver the supplies the rest of the way.

warspite1

Thank-you for this post. If you ever try and suggest that you have the moral high ground in ANY debate I will have this to hand.

Lets be completely clear here. You said:

"I never mentioned the Spanish rail system".

I said that was untrue and that you did. To evidence this I provide a post from you that says:

"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".

And how do you respond to that?

"I still do not mention the Spanish rail system".

So in saying that a rail line can handle vast amount of supplies and that it can supply more than enough for the Spanish campaign, you would have us believe that you were not suggesting that the Spanish rail system could supply the Germans with all it needed???? But that was the whole point of you providing that irrelevant Wiki article on US railroads in the 21st Century - because you were seeking to prove that the Germans could use the Spanish rail network.

I am surprised you allowed yourself to type this response out. Not your finest hour Lemay. Pretty shocking to be honest - along with the post about the Axis allies, you've really shown your level here. You are so desperate to be right over every single point, that you've resorted to this....[sm=nono.gif]

The line to the Spanish border is a single line. I was referring to that - and, obviously, to any sections of Spanish rail that were repaired to the European standard. Again, I did NOT mention the Spanish rail system.

warspite1

Funny isn't it? You never mention Vichy was an Axis ally, you never mentioned the Spanish rail system, you never mention the supply of Greek 1st Army..... all that you've never done and yet you've been wittering inanely on for 40 pages.....

But no matter, your credibility is shot here anyway so you just keep posting things you haven't said after saying them for post after post after post....

I still defy you to find anyplace where I referred to the Spanish Rail system - other than that it would be repaired.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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.

You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.

warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.

It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.

warspite

Well if you are so sure then all you have to do is make a case as to how it comes about. As said, providing 4 lines comprising less than 50 words can't possibly do it. It will take effort but you are so certain of it, of how it could come about, of who would propose it, why it would be accepted, what territories it would contain etc etc. I've said its totally absurd, you say its not - it's your claim so make it. Then we can discuss.

quote:

. . . On any given day, at least a third of the tonnage shipped on the German railway system consisted of coal and coal derivatives.69 The functioning of the entire economy depended on the capacity of the railway system to maintain these deliveries. Between 1929 and 1938, the Reichsbahn had suffered almost a decade of systematic neglect.70 Whilst money from the railways was diverted to build the autobahns and to fund investment in an expansion of bus and truck transport, the Reichsbahn's rolling stock was allowed to deteriorate. Between 1933 and 1937, the railway purchased less than 2,000 new goods trucks per annum, a fraction of what would have been needed to offset wear and tear. As a result, the number of serviceable freight cars declined from an average of over 670,000 cars in the late 1920s to less than 575,000 in 1937. The Reichsbahn did its best to compensate by making more efficient use of its shrinking fleet, but from 1937 onwards the gap between the volume of traffic and the capacity of the railway system widened inexorably.
In 1939 the normal seasonal problems were compounded by the mass movement of troops, first to their jumping off positions along the eastern border and then to the western frontier. Bottlenecks and jams radiated across the system. Crashes multiplied, with two major disasters just before Christmas claiming the lives of 230 people and shaking public confidence.71 Over the winter of 1939-40, Gestapo informants on plat- forms across the country reported public outrage at delays and arbitrary cancellations.72 The rail administrators struggled to ease the problems of freight traffic by cutting passenger services wholesale. But even drastic measures could not prevent a crisis. By early 1940, tens of thousands of freight cars were frozen in kilometres of traffic jams. By January, turn-around times had risen to more than a week. The effective carrying capacity of the Reichsbahn's rolling stock plummeted and the immediate result was an interruption to coal supplies. By December, the mines were warning of an impending 'transportation calamity'. In the freezing city of Berlin, coal ran so short that even a leading armaments firm such as Rheinmetall could not protect its deliveries from requisitioning by the desperate municipal authorities.73 Meanwhile, at the pitheads in the Ruhr, the mountains of undelivered coal reached dangerous levels, forc- ing the mines to slow down production. In total, in the early month of 1940 almost 10 per cent of German armaments plants were affected by the coal shortages.74 In the central industrial district around Kassel the figure was as high as 27 per cent. In January 1940 Goering described transport as the problem of the German war economy.

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

[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.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

warspite1

My goodness!!

What is wrong with you. Are you actually trying to be wrong on every point?

quote:

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving.

Why don't you stop spouting rubbish that betrays you are totally and utterly out of your depth and try reading some history? Try reading something, anything about the Greco-Italian war and you will understand how thoroughly absurd that comment is.

quote:

The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater.

Oh dear..... Please re-read that and come back when you've realised what a total load of rubbish you've spoken. If you can't then I'll point you in the right direction - but I'm a fair man and so will give you a chance.

quote:

Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

Do you even understand basic English????? Read my post again. There is a difference between Could and Did. Yes? When you've found out what the Greeks did then you can provide that evidence here. Until then I'll listen to the professionals in the US Army who have given their understand of what the Greeks Did during their study of the Balkan Campaign.

And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......

Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More lies to hide your total lack of knowledge....

So we were talking about Spain at this point and indeed you said:

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.

Which part of that comment was you not referring to the Spanish rail system being able to more than handle anything required by the Germans? Reprehensible behaviour on your part Lemay.

Did I really need to state that the Spanish lines would have to be repaired - just as they have to be in every military campaign?!?! And, even in your quote above, I still do not mention the Spanish rail system. The French rail system will get the supplies to the rail head at the border and then trucks can deliver the supplies the rest of the way.

warspite1

Thank-you for this post. If you ever try and suggest that you have the moral high ground in ANY debate I will have this to hand.

Lets be completely clear here. You said:

"I never mentioned the Spanish rail system".

I said that was untrue and that you did. To evidence this I provide a post from you that says:

"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".

And how do you respond to that?

"I still do not mention the Spanish rail system".

So in saying that a rail line can handle vast amount of supplies and that it can supply more than enough for the Spanish campaign, you would have us believe that you were not suggesting that the Spanish rail system could supply the Germans with all it needed???? But that was the whole point of you providing that irrelevant Wiki article on US railroads in the 21st Century - because you were seeking to prove that the Germans could use the Spanish rail network.

I am surprised you allowed yourself to type this response out. Not your finest hour Lemay. Pretty shocking to be honest - along with the post about the Axis allies, you've really shown your level here. You are so desperate to be right over every single point, that you've resorted to this....[sm=nono.gif]

The line to the Spanish border is a single line. I was referring to that - and, obviously, to any sections of Spanish rail that were repaired to the European standard. Again, I did NOT mention the Spanish rail system.

warspite1

Funny isn't it? You never mention Vichy was an Axis ally, you never mentioned the Spanish rail system, you never mention the supply of Greek 1st Army..... all that you've never done and yet you've been wittering inanely on for 40 pages.....

But no matter, your credibility is shot here anyway so you just keep posting things you haven't said after saying them for post after post after post....

I still defy you to find anyplace where I referred to the Spanish Rail system - other than that it would be repaired.

warspite1

I have no intention of doing so. You are playing infantile word games. This tactic has come up now on about four different occasions. You argue and argue and argue..... and then say "I never said that".

quote:

Listen Lemay, if you weren't trying to prove that the Spanish rail network was capable of supplying all of Germany's needs and more (which you did say) then just what point were you actually making?

quote:

And you bring up rail repair and are making a big thing of this to deflect from what is happening. So tell me this. According to you Spain is going to be a blitz - a walk in the park. So if Spain is going to be over that quick just how much rail repair do you think is going to get done???????

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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?

The road network sure changed has with new roads. Just like in every country, new roads in new places. Why not go back to 1940 and take I10, I45, and/or I69 out of Houston, Texas, USA?

So, let me get this straight: In the 1940's all roads in Spain went through the mountains instead of around them because the Spanish are idiots?

warspite1

Why do you have to be so black and white to the point of absurdity????

Why would ALL Spanish roads go through mountains? Please show me where I so much as suggested such a load of nonsense?

Edit: Sorry this seems to be a response to RangerJoe but had some of my posts. My comment is in response to your last comment only.

Your 'study' insists that the German supply paths must go through the mountains. So, there must be no roads around those mountains. So, it's saying the Spanish are idiots.

warspite1

Again why do act like a 5-year old?

I'm not the one spewing insults right and left!!

quote:

Why would the Germans do that? you just make yourself look rather silly with that sort of comment.

For the last time these are primary source documents from German logistic guys that studied the terrain (you know actually studied it rather than look at some poxy google map). The German planned route obviously used existing Spanish roads. The Germans worried about part of the road network (as described previously).

And so, despite the quality of the book and the source materials that support its findings, you would rather just ignore it because it doesn't fit with your in depth 'staff study' that proved the Germans would blitz through Spain and Turkey. you prefer to rely on a board war game and a few google maps.....

Let's see: This "study" claims that the Spanish rail can't be repaired and no Spanish roads go around mountains (according to you, of course). Yeah. I definitely question that "study".

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

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.

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. Third request.

I didn't say you called the "supermen". I said you were building them up into supermen. And that's exactly what the post I bolded was attempting to do.

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.

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. Fourth request.

For the third time, see the post I bolded.

warspite1

Getting monotonous now. I've answered the point you bolded more than adequately.

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.

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. Fifth request.

Yes, it is getting monotonous. For the fourth time, see the post I bolded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

[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.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

warspite1

My goodness!!

What is wrong with you. Are you actually trying to be wrong on every point?

quote:

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving.

Why don't you stop spouting rubbish that betrays you are totally and utterly out of your depth and try reading some history? Try reading something, anything about the Greco-Italian war and you will understand how thoroughly absurd that comment is.

quote:

The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater.

Oh dear..... Please re-read that and come back when you've realised what a total load of rubbish you've spoken. If you can't then I'll point you in the right direction - but I'm a fair man and so will give you a chance.

quote:

Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

Do you even understand basic English????? Read my post again. There is a difference between Could and Did. Yes? When you've found out what the Greeks did then you can provide that evidence here. Until then I'll listen to the professionals in the US Army who have given their understand of what the Greeks Did during their study of the Balkan Campaign.

And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......

Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

warspite1

Firstly, where did I say the Greeks couldn't have supplied 1st Army from Athens? [:D]

quote:

Secondly, why do you keep talking about German supply and trying to say if the Germans could do it the Greeks could?

quote:

You keep doing this in argument after argument. You come up with totally off the wall comparisons e.g. Spanish Army vs 2nd South African Division [8|]

quote:

If the Greek capabilities were the same as the German Army then they would have ejected Italy from Albania.

quote:

And remember, all this is argument from you isn't even being made because you seek to prove the Greeks did supply 1st Army from Athens. Apparently to you its MASSIVELY important to show they could..... and at the same time rubbish the US Military study that said supply was centred on Salonika. I mean... why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Check the map that goes with that one. Somehow, the Germans took that very route in 1941!!

Yes, there was a ferry there before the bridge, so a one-time crossing would have been feasible. Are you suggesting that it is as easy to run supply operations over ferry as over a bridge?

Apparently it was for the Germans!

warspite1

So let's be clear what you are saying here.

When you talk about 'the Germans' taking that route, you haven't once given any more detail. The Germans you refer to was a motorised infantry regiment. This unit was deployed as part of the operation to cut off the 1st Greek Army's escape route and then, loaded with as much provisions as they could carry, headed south.

You equate that, with a Greek supply effort for its 1st Army?

No I don't. The Greek problem was much simpler: Shorter route, assisted by a rail line. With the Greeks just sitting in place. The Germans were on the offensive and had much longer supply lines.

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

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.

You like to bloviate. I like to be precise. I think that's a winner for me.

warspite1

Yet again, you want people to believe your absurd notion about a 'Vichy' Spain. Please take some time out to read and moreover, understand the complexities of Vichy France, then come back and try and make a case for 'Vichy' Spain once you've grasped at least the basics.

It's not absurd in the least. In fact, it's almost inevitable: Franco has no where else to turn and Hitler wants Spain pacified. Vichy Spain is the answer to both their deepest desires.

warspite

Well if you are so sure then all you have to do is make a case as to how it comes about. As said, providing 4 lines comprising less than 50 words can't possibly do it. It will take effort but you are so certain of it, of how it could come about, of who would propose it, why it would be accepted, what territories it would contain etc etc. I've said its totally absurd, you say its not - it's your claim so make it. Then we can discuss.

I've made the case for it. You're the one who wants to use 50 words when 5 will suffice. I can't correct where you're going wrong if you don't spell out what you object to. I'm not a mind reader.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

More lies to hide your total lack of knowledge....

So we were talking about Spain at this point and indeed you said:

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.

Which part of that comment was you not referring to the Spanish rail system being able to more than handle anything required by the Germans? Reprehensible behaviour on your part Lemay.

Did I really need to state that the Spanish lines would have to be repaired - just as they have to be in every military campaign?!?! And, even in your quote above, I still do not mention the Spanish rail system. The French rail system will get the supplies to the rail head at the border and then trucks can deliver the supplies the rest of the way.

warspite1

Thank-you for this post. If you ever try and suggest that you have the moral high ground in ANY debate I will have this to hand.

Lets be completely clear here. You said:

"I never mentioned the Spanish rail system".

I said that was untrue and that you did. To evidence this I provide a post from you that says:

"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".

And how do you respond to that?

"I still do not mention the Spanish rail system".

So in saying that a rail line can handle vast amount of supplies and that it can supply more than enough for the Spanish campaign, you would have us believe that you were not suggesting that the Spanish rail system could supply the Germans with all it needed???? But that was the whole point of you providing that irrelevant Wiki article on US railroads in the 21st Century - because you were seeking to prove that the Germans could use the Spanish rail network.

I am surprised you allowed yourself to type this response out. Not your finest hour Lemay. Pretty shocking to be honest - along with the post about the Axis allies, you've really shown your level here. You are so desperate to be right over every single point, that you've resorted to this....[sm=nono.gif]

The line to the Spanish border is a single line. I was referring to that - and, obviously, to any sections of Spanish rail that were repaired to the European standard. Again, I did NOT mention the Spanish rail system.

warspite1

Funny isn't it? You never mention Vichy was an Axis ally, you never mentioned the Spanish rail system, you never mention the supply of Greek 1st Army..... all that you've never done and yet you've been wittering inanely on for 40 pages.....

But no matter, your credibility is shot here anyway so you just keep posting things you haven't said after saying them for post after post after post....

I still defy you to find anyplace where I referred to the Spanish Rail system - other than that it would be repaired.

warspite1

I have no intention of doing so. You are playing infantile word games. This tactic has come up now on about four different occasions. You argue and argue and argue..... and then say "I never said that".

Yes. And that's because it's the truth: I never did say that! And you still haven't shown where you claim that I did!

quote:

Listen Lemay, if you weren't trying to prove that the Spanish rail network was capable of supplying all of Germany's needs and more (which you did say) then just what point were you actually making?

That the European Rail Network could: applies to the rail line to Spain, and any line repaired to that standard subsequently. Also applied to the line to Turkey.

quote:

And you bring up rail repair and are making a big thing of this to deflect from what is happening. So tell me this. According to you Spain is going to be a blitz - a walk in the park. So if Spain is going to be over that quick just how much rail repair do you think is going to get done???????

Of course it is: the size and quality of the Spanish army (tiny and crappy) assures it. And rail repair of the lines is not really necessary because all of Spain is within truck supply distance from the German supply head at the Spanish/French border.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Is this the right room for an argument?[:'(]

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

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.

I don't know why you keep clinging to this rot when it's so obvious that you're wrong.

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving. The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater. Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

warspite1

My goodness!!

What is wrong with you. Are you actually trying to be wrong on every point?

quote:

The Greeks were just defending - sitting in their foxholes without moving.

Why don't you stop spouting rubbish that betrays you are totally and utterly out of your depth and try reading some history? Try reading something, anything about the Greco-Italian war and you will understand how thoroughly absurd that comment is.

quote:

The Germans were advancing and on the offensive. Obviously, their supply needs were proportionately far greater.

Oh dear..... Please re-read that and come back when you've realised what a total load of rubbish you've spoken. If you can't then I'll point you in the right direction - but I'm a fair man and so will give you a chance.

quote:

Yet there they are being supplied over those very same roads you claim can't be used for supply. (By the way, here's another example of the Germans supplying themselves over roads at distances of well over 500 km. [:D]).

If the Germans can supply themselves offensively over those roads, how could the Greeks not be able to provide defensive supply over those same roads?!

Do you even understand basic English????? Read my post again. There is a difference between Could and Did. Yes? When you've found out what the Greeks did then you can provide that evidence here. Until then I'll listen to the professionals in the US Army who have given their understand of what the Greeks Did during their study of the Balkan Campaign.

And I never said that they DID supply themselves by those routes. I said they could have.

warspite1

So you've been arguing like a stubborn mule over something you don't understand - but moreover don't even believe - just for the sake of it???? Wow.....

So let's be completely clear. You won't believe the findings of the US Military study on how the Greek supplied their 1st Army via Salonika (a quicker, flater, shorter route), but now (after about 30 pages of nonsense about how they supplied them from Athens) you admit you don't know how the Greeks did actually supply them. But although you don't know that you are still going to insist that the US military planners don't have a clue.......????

Erm...... okay......

Let's see: It's now clear that the Germans supplied themselves (offensively) over those very same roads that you claim the Greeks couldn't have used (defensively) - even though the Greeks have a rail line part of the way, which the Germans don't have.

And, I repeat, you've taken that study out of context.

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

warspite1

Firstly, where did I say the Greeks couldn't have supplied 1st Army from Athens? [:D]

Just as soon as I said that they could!

quote:

Secondly, why do you keep talking about German supply and trying to say if the Germans could do it the Greeks could?

Because that's an obvious conclusion. The Germans were being supplied over those same roads (offensively) without assistance from a rail line, why couldn't the Greeks do so (defensively) with the assistance of a rail line.

quote:

You keep doing this in argument after argument. You come up with totally off the wall comparisons e.g. Spanish Army vs 2nd South African Division [8|]

The Spaniards can't possibly compare to the quality of the force Germany defeated at Gazala in taking Tobruk.

quote:

If the Greek capabilities were the same as the German Army then they would have ejected Italy from Albania.

Which they were in the process of doing.

quote:

And remember, all this is argument from you isn't even being made because you seek to prove the Greeks did supply 1st Army from Athens. Apparently to you its MASSIVELY important to show they could..... and at the same time rubbish the US Military study that said supply was centred on Salonika. I mean... why?

Oh! So now it's just "centered" on Salonika. A strategic retreat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Is this the right room for an argument?[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
....

And, I repeat, here's another example of the Germans being supplied by road for at least 500km. (And probably even further than that, since there's no telling where their rail head was at this time after blitzing through Yugoslavia just to get to Greece.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

https://youtu.be/xpAvcGcEc0k

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Here is an interesting read:

the wages of destruction

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+wages+of+destruction+pdf&FORM=QSRE8

Full text of "Tooze, Adam The Wages Of Destruction The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy"

https://archive.org/stream/ToozeAdamTheWagesOfDestructionTheMakingAndBreakingOfTheNaziEconomy/Tooze%2C%20Adam%20-%20The%20Wages%20of%20Destruction%20The%20Making%20and%20Breaking%20of%20the%20Nazi%20Economy_djvu.txt

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Here is an interesting read:

the wages of destruction

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+wages+of+destruction+pdf&FORM=QSRE8

Full text of "Tooze, Adam The Wages Of Destruction The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy"

https://archive.org/stream/ToozeAdamTheWagesOfDestructionTheMakingAndBreakingOfTheNaziEconomy/Tooze%2C%20Adam%20-%20The%20Wages%20of%20Destruction%20The%20Making%20and%20Breaking%20of%20the%20Nazi%20Economy_djvu.txt

Thanks for reporting this book!! [&o]

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Here is an interesting read:

the wages of destruction

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+wages+of+destruction+pdf&FORM=QSRE8

Full text of "Tooze, Adam The Wages Of Destruction The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy"

https://archive.org/stream/ToozeAdamTheWagesOfDestructionTheMakingAndBreakingOfTheNaziEconomy/Tooze%2C%20Adam%20-%20The%20Wages%20of%20Destruction%20The%20Making%20and%20Breaking%20of%20the%20Nazi%20Economy_djvu.txt

Thanks for reporting this book!! [&o]

You are welcome. You get to read about the economic problems with managing the Nazi German economy and why they just could not produce more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: UP844

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Here is an interesting read:

the wages of destruction

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+wages+of+destruction+pdf&FORM=QSRE8

Full text of "Tooze, Adam The Wages Of Destruction The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy"

https://archive.org/stream/ToozeAdamTheWagesOfDestructionTheMakingAndBreakingOfTheNaziEconomy/Tooze%2C%20Adam%20-%20The%20Wages%20of%20Destruction%20The%20Making%20and%20Breaking%20of%20the%20Nazi%20Economy_djvu.txt

Thanks for reporting this book!! [&o]

You are welcome. You get to read about the economic problems with managing the Nazi German economy and why they just could not produce more.

warspite1

+1 I will need to keep funds available for Taranto, but would like to get this too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I realise there is next to no sense in responding to you (did you really need to fill up two pages with endless quotes?), but XXXI Pzr Corps and its associated formations was so wrecked by Yugoslavia/Greece it was next in action in November 1941 - it took 6 months to refit at a time when the Germans really needed every armoured formation they had to hand.

by the end of that campaign, they weren't supplied in any meaningful sense, they could just about keep an advance going against totally fragmented opposition.