WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

[Ecthy]

Why should Nazi Germany turn more liberal over time? Someone's hooked on the Whig interpretation of history

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
Oncle, I am puzzled why Rommel's supply lines stretched all the way back to Tunsia if he had all those intermediate ports available for resupply?

Some supplies transited through Tunisia, but not a significant amount.

[lord of the mark]

Re: History of the Millenial Reich, for Ned

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Story of the Reich :

I dont know what it is youre smoking, but whatever it is, i think id like to try some.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Why should Nazi Germany turn more liberal over time? Someone's hooked on the Whig interpretation of history

I think what theyre hooked on is something more tangible than that

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Why should Nazi Germany turn more liberal over time? Someone's hooked on the Whig interpretation of history

Are you oblivious to irony ?

And — are you certain that was my point ?

[Ecthy]

I'm definitely going to smoke some later today, so you're welcome to join

[Fake Boris]

Fights epistemological stalemates !

[ElTigre]

Just 2 short comments, maybe I'll have time for more later:

LOTM,

you don't need RR to transport a (motorized/panzer) division through Spain. Sure, RR are better than roads of all kinds, but look at the German campaign in Greece, where the entire push of the German divisions was made on roads within weeks. This was in hostile territory, with bridges and passes blown up, against determined British/Greek resistance. Surely they could have moved a lot faster in friendly territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Greece

Oncle Boris,

as LOTM already pointed out, you didn't consider the fact that all supplies arriving in North Africa had to be transported from the ports to the front. During the Battle of Alamein, when Rommel's supply line from Tripoli/Benghazi/Tobruk was as long as never before, 9 out of 10 tons of fuel were used by the trucks in order to carry the 10th ton of fuel to the Panzer Divisions. I agree with you that the Italian merchant fleet wasn't the choke point - the lack of motorized transports in North Africa was.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by ElTigre
Just 2 short comments, maybe I'll have time for more later:

LOTM,

you don't need RR to transport a (motorized/panzer) division through Spain. Sure, RR are better than roads of all kinds, but look at the German campaign in Greece, where the entire push of the German divisions was made on roads within weeks. This was in hostile territory, with bridges and passes blown up, against determined British/Greek resistance. Surely they could have moved a lot faster in friendly territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Greece

1. the roads in Spain were pretty bad, also, from what I understand. Youre going to be wearing out treads, and needing to stop to replace them. Also, even if you can move the panzer divs themselves, youre not going to be able to move the supplies that way.

2. The key issue is time. You have to move fast, before the UK moves to strengthen the Gib defenses, take Spanish Morocco, set in motion the insurgency in Spain, etc, etc.

3. If you move panzers by road, the secrecy OB posits is impossible.

[Ecthy]

90% of the local fuel were consumed by transport? Source?

[Ned]

Logistical problems doomed the every recourse the Nazis had after taking the soft targets through the summer of 1940. It seems clear they had no chance to win on any front other than a direct assault on the UK, and that would have been a bear as well.

[Ned]

Oncle, I see your Reich scenario includes the defeat of the USSR. I think Germany wins only if it does not attack the USSR and keeps the US out of the war.

[Myrddin]

Originally posted by Ecthy
90% of the local fuel were consumed by transport? Source?

Try doing the maths

How much fuel a truck will consume (including contingency) versus how much it will be able to carry to its destination

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The RN still rules the seas, which means Madagascar can be delayed as long as necessary, South Africa cant defy UK.

This is rather overegging the pudding- the Royal Navy didn't really 'rule the seas' as the losses of several prestigious ships prove- vulnerable in port to midget submarines (as at Alexandria) and also from air attack (see the Repulse).

The entry of Japan into a war against the British would be hastened, I think, by military defeats in the Mediterranean and Africa- after all, the British had to call on troops from India to reinforce the army in Africa.

the ports in Libya are still inadequate.

I don't recall this being the case.

I think the problem was that the Italian tanks were ill-suited to desert warfare, that Italian troops (other than dedicated Fascisti) lacked sufficient ideological motivation for a war for a new 'Roman Empire' and that proper forward planning was a little lacking.

Of course no BoB means alot of UK air assets released, etc etc.

They still have to get from the British Isles to wherever- no mean feat with a by now completely Axis-friendly Spain and North Africa.

Running trucks from Tripoli to forces attempting to advance in Palestine or Sudan will take more fuel than the Italians can transport across the Med. To rebuild Alex, virtually all the equipment must come from Germany. Via Tripoli. It will take a while.

Why not straight to Egypt- from Italy ?


After all, this scenario of British defeat in the Western Mediterranean presumes the loss of Malta.

Its going to be very dangerous for Italian naval units to transit the canal. Even once theyve cleaned it up and repaired the damage.

Is this assuming that the Italians have lost Sudan/Eritrea/Ethiopia/Somaliland ?

Meanwhile the Germans are going, to what, send air units to Senegal?

Uh- why ? Why not fly them to Egypt ? There were more than enough native Egyptian sympathisers, and Hitler had been wooing the Grand Mufti and anti-Zionist Arab forces.

Happy hunting for the RN again.

Or Italian, Spanish, Vichy and German submarines- with bases from Taranto to Cadiz.

Senegal is effectively an island as far as modern warfare is concerned.

Errr ? Or adjacent to French North West Africa, and fairly close to Equatorial French Africa.

The "line" between the axis and the UK will be somewhere between French Morocco and Dakar.

Not sure why. Mauretania was French, so was Mali and Algeria, the Cameroons, we're envisaging a pro-Axis Canary Islands too...

So Ethiopia will fall.

I'm not quite so sure. Great Britain gave in to Japanese pressure to close the Burma Road in 1940- I think that defeat in Africa and the Mediterranean would embolden the Empire of Japan- and make it eager to share in a distribution of British assets, especially India.

BTW, in this scen do they give French Morocco to Spain?

It's something I know Franco was angling for, but there would be presumably be the prospect of British spoils in Africa to dangle before him.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Why are you arguing with me. I am telling you what the Miltary Channel said.

Uh huh. See, I rely on direct quotes, transcripts and diaries and military directives- that sort of thing.

Not Ned's paraphrase of a television programme on the Military Channel.

This is why we have rather different approaches to history.

They base what they said on documents, particularly from Stalin who was aware of the British attempts to get Hitler to believe that he was going to attack.

Really ? And what documents are these meant to be ?

As to the date, July 21, how does that related to the British decline of the June peace offering?

It rather undermines your notion of the absolutely truthful Chancellor of Nazi Germany, the plain dealer with the Soviet Government.

Here a scant month after the fall of France, is the leader of the country which has a supposed 'non-aggression' pact with Russia, getting his military to draw up plans for an invasion of European Russia- something which he had said was Germany's destiny long before.

molly, you are very adept at demonstrating a knowledge with no understaning at all.

Coming from you, that's the height of irony.