Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the Axis Powers have won in the Mediterranean and North Africa?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tigersqn
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    What Desiree said. Modern parlance is not the same as WW2 parlance.
    Fair enough, my apologies.

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    So that's a definite maybe.



    The part of Poland on offer would be from the USSR, as they got the bit adjacent to Romania, Yugoslavia held few Romanians so that's buying trouble but the oil rights? Nazi Germany wanted autarky, not sharing. Sorry, Javaman, but that last idea has failed to acquire escape velocity. For it to happen in the Axis's favour, Germany has to be able to get sufficient force across the Med before the Red Army hits Mosul.
    I love that 'Definitely maybe' bw, lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
    Uhhh, the UN didn't exist during the time of the Vichy regime.



    Same as above.
    What Desiree said. Modern parlance is not the same as WW2 parlance.

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by redcoat View Post
    OK then, name a convoy that ran through the Med to supply the forces in North Africa while Monty was in charge.
    There were a couple of convoys at the beginning of the campaign which went through the Med, but that was before the German's got involved and long before Monty went anywhere near Africa.
    You know damned well the answer to that ,anyway did I mention supplies to Monty? There were more interests in the Med area than just North Africa, Malta for one thing, Don't try smart arsing me son. lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • redcoat
    replied
    Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
    I do not know what books some of you guys are reading but the fact remains that Britain DID continue to use the Med: on a more limited scale for certain convoys AND the Royal Navy still patrolled the Med: Both things were done even if it was just to show the Axis Powers that no one was going to shut the door to that 'Little Pond' unless it was with our say so!! lcm1
    OK then, name a convoy that ran through the Med to supply the forces in North Africa while Monty was in charge.
    There were a couple of convoys at the beginning of the campaign which went through the Med, but that was before the German's got involved and long before Monty went anywhere near Africa.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stryker 19K30
    replied
    Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
    Uhhh, the UN didn't exist during the time of the Vichy regime.



    Same as above.
    I thought you were into history guy...












    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by NoPref View Post
    Heh. Malta's supplies most certainly did come through the Med. Of course, Nazis capturing Malta would have made that supply line rather moot.

    Capturing Malta would have made Nazi supply lines more secure, but that does not guarantee that Rommel would have received a lot more supplies. Hitler and cronies have to decide to send supplies to N.A. in order for them to get there.
    I do not know what books some of you guys are reading but the fact remains that Britain DID continue to use the Med: on a more limited scale for certain convoys AND the Royal Navy still patrolled the Med: Both things were done even if it was just to show the Axis Powers that no one was going to shut the door to that 'Little Pond' unless it was with our say so!! lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • NoPref
    replied
    Originally posted by redcoat View Post
    Malta falling would have had zero effect on Montgomery's supplies, his supplies did not come through Med.
    Heh. Malta's supplies most certainly did come through the Med. Of course, Nazis capturing Malta would have made that supply line rather moot.

    Capturing Malta would have made Nazi supply lines more secure, but that does not guarantee that Rommel would have received a lot more supplies. Hitler and cronies have to decide to send supplies to N.A. in order for them to get there.

    Leave a comment:


  • redcoat
    replied
    Originally posted by ITALICA ONE View Post
    If the Germans had not wasted the cream of their parachute forces in Crete and seized the island of Malta, the tables in North Africa would have been completley reversed with Rommel fully supplied and Montgomery always short on everything.

    Death bed last words. Always pay the Legions, Septimius Severus.

    http://www.greatmilitarybattles.com/...d_war_two.html
    Malta falling would have had zero effect on Montgomery's supplies, his supplies did not come through Med.

    Leave a comment:


  • Desiree Clary
    replied
    Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
    Uhhh, the UN didn't exist during the time of the Vichy regime.



    Same as above.
    From Wikipedia disabiguation of"United Nations:"

    "United Nations may also refer to:
    Allies of World War II"

    Leave a comment:


  • tigersqn
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    Just as the Vichy regime keeps France out of the United Nations,...
    Uhhh, the UN didn't exist during the time of the Vichy regime.

    It also keeps Italy out of the United Nations.
    Same as above.

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
    The distance Tunisia is from Egypt increases the transportation element necessary to exploit these deep water ports, so decreases their efficiency relative to closer ports like Tripoli. A decrease in efficiency will not save Egypt, if the Axis effort is large enough.

    Note that the Axis will still lose the war should they take Alexandria, so why Germany is taking this exceptional effort in NA, in terms of war strategy, is a big question.
    There are two ports of a decent size in Tunisia, Tunis and Sousse. Bizerte would be similar to Tobruk. Until someone can provide historical data, I would suggest we're looking at similar carrying capacity to Tripoli and Bengazi, and therefore similar losses with distance travelled.

    As to why Germany went into NA - it's called backing an ally. Just as the Vichy regime keeps France out of the United Nations, backing Italy in NA keeps Italy in the Axis and allows Germany use of Italian equipment and supplies if need be. It also keeps Italy out of the United Nations.

    Leave a comment:


  • ITALICA ONE
    replied
    If the Germans had not wasted the cream of their parachute forces in Crete and seized the island of Malta, the tables in North Africa would have been completley reversed with Rommel fully supplied and Montgomery always short on everything.

    Death bed last words. Always pay the Legions, Septimius Severus.

    http://www.greatmilitarybattles.com/...d_war_two.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Glenn239
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    Check the map - Tunisia is in the wrong direction to threaten Suez. It is also not connected to any railway system capable of getting supplies to any war front in Egypt. And you overlook the Axis lines of supply, which if you moved the ports to Tunisia would now run past Malta: the German supplies for NA came from Greece, as did some Italian supplies.
    The distance Tunisia is from Egypt increases the transportation element necessary to exploit these deep water ports, so decreases their efficiency relative to closer ports like Tripoli. A decrease in efficiency will not save Egypt, if the Axis effort is large enough.

    Note that the Axis will still lose the war should they take Alexandria, so why Germany is taking this exceptional effort in NA, in terms of war strategy, is a big question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Glenn239
    replied
    Originally posted by Andy H View Post
    Hi Java

    The options for Germany & Russia 'using' Turkey were very slim and near impossible/implausible to enforce. Unless Turkey were to fall into either the German camp or the Russian one, its neutrality was the next best thing for both.
    Turkey could no more withstand a partition than could Poland, which is why Java is correct to allude to political difficulties, not logistic, being the primary impediment.

    The last thing Germany or any of the Axis allies wanted was Russian access to the Med, or them gaining territory to the south into Iraq/Iran, as it would strengthen there economy. Potentially at the expense of the Axis.
    Actually, as it turned out, the last thing Germany wanted was to be at war with the USSR and the USA at the same time. The partition of Turkey or division of the ME would be beneficial to, or detrimental to, Germany purely on the basis of whether it would allow it, or force it, to avoid two front war.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X