Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spain joins Axis

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

  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    Originally posted by MaCroto View Post
    I'm not so shure about it, but i've heard in documentary that British beaten off the germans at EL Alamein becouse they held malta
    Sort of. The role of Malta is debated by by historians. It served as a base for British submarines, air reconissance, bombers, and radio signals intellegence. Most of that could be accomplished from bases in Egypt, tho not as effciently. Somewhere on my shelves is a magazine artical showing the quantity of Italian cargo lost from attacks based in Alexandria vs those orginating in Malta. Even when Malta was fully 'suppresed' and the subs, bombers, and recon planes unable to operate Axis supply at the front lines was still inadaquate.

    The Axis problem is that even were there no British interdiction of the cargo ships, the Axis would still not have enough trucks to carry the fuel and ammo across the Lybian desert. The thousands of kilometers of bad roads used up more tons of fuel, spare parts, and replacement trucks than tons delivered to the combat units.

    Also the closer to Egypt they come the more effective Brit air interdiction from there is, interfering with both road and sea supply of the Axis army. So while the British losing Malta make life easier for the Italian ships crews it does not solve all the Axis supply problems.

    Originally posted by MaCroto View Post
    P.s.
    and where there any carriers in Meditereinian on not?
    Yes, they were sent there several times. Not much manuvering space, and they were always in range of some Axis airbase somewhere, so it was risky. Three were used to support the Pedistal convoy to Malta and one was sunk by a submarine. They were sent again for covering the Torch invasion of Algiers.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaCroto
    replied
    Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
    Er, no. North Africa was supplied either via Suez or (once Torch was launched) Morocco or Algeria. Malta was of no consequence to Allied supply lines until Sicily was invaded by which time Malta, if taken by Axis forces, would have been cut off and retaken.
    I'm not so shure about it, but i've heard in documentary that British beaten off the germans at EL Alamein becouse they held malta

    P.s.
    and where there any carriers in Meditereinian on not?

    Leave a comment:


  • Full Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by MaCroto View Post
    and about Malta maybe germans couldn't improve their suplly lines but without malta allies would certanly lose one of their vital ones
    Er, no. North Africa was supplied either via Suez or (once Torch was launched) Morocco or Algeria. Malta was of no consequence to Allied supply lines until Sicily was invaded by which time Malta, if taken by Axis forces, would have been cut off and retaken.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
    I don't remember where I came across that info. However Tooze's Wages of Destruction points out that France was recieving Canadian grain and that after France fell Germany had a problem feeding France.

    Edit: This site has the text of the letters exchanged between Franco and the Axis on this topic. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400808a.html
    Note that specific mention is made about grain from England which is likely from Canada.
    Ok, thats helpfull. A quick check of Ellis's 'Brute Force' suggests the same problem for oil. With Spain no longer able to import its needs from outside Europe the German resource problem tightens another notch. Spain looks like another weak partner, like the Italians drawing away more in precious material than it can compensate for in real military power.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdrianE
    replied
    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
    Do you have a good source for that. There are folks who claim Germany provided Spain with all the grain it required. I have my doubts, particlarly for after 1941, but lack any knowledge of the grain trade of the 1940s.
    I don't remember where I came across that info. However Tooze's Wages of Destruction points out that France was recieving Canadian grain and that after France fell Germany had a problem feeding France.

    Edit: This site has the text of the letters exchanged between Franco and the Axis on this topic. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1940/400808a.html
    Note that specific mention is made about grain from England which is likely from Canada.
    Last edited by AdrianE; 09 Oct 08, 11:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lonewulf
    replied
    I think we can all agree if Spain could and would have joined the Axis, the war in Europe would have been more bloody and lasted a lot longer. I cannot say Spain joining the war would have been an Axis victory, but I can say that by the time the war would have been over the victory over the axis would have tasted as bitter sweet as defeat.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaCroto
    replied
    to take giblarter gemans would take few luftwafe squadrons to create pressure and 2 maybe 3 divisions of infantry for mains assault, and about reinforcment to the brithish stationed there germans would secure themselves wits submarine screen to sind the forth coming ships

    and about Malta maybe germans couldn't improve their suplly lines but without malta allies would certanly lose one of their vital ones
    and that trigerrs a whole new set of events
    tirs there would be no invasion of sicily and italy and sicilian grain could replace canadian grain
    italy wouldn't dich out of the war so germans wouldn't have to make another front, they wou have a sceure flank.
    and the war would definetly prolonge to 1946 by witch germay would commision many war machines
    and V2 rockets would be used for military porpuses not civilian bombing of london and so on

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain General
    replied
    Not to mention the effect this would have had on Overlord.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaCroto
    replied
    Originally posted by Legate View Post
    Imho,1942 might be too late,the tide was turning against Hitler. I think 1941 would have been a better choice,the Axis were on a roll then.
    As for the effect Spain would have on the war,I don't it would alter things drastcly. Other than taking Gibralter,I don't see the Spanish military being that much of a threat to the Allies.
    As for the fall of Gibralter,IIRC most of British shipping went around the Southern tip of Africa,not through the Med.
    be that as it may but with spain controling Gilblartar Germans could captured malta and with it even win North African campain
    and with that oil in his Panzer divisions hitler would rain havoc across the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
    The result would have been starvation for the Spanish populace. The Spanish were buying grain from Canada. Germany couldn't replace that as they were short on food as it was.
    Do you have a good source for that. There are folks who claim Germany provided Spain with all the grain it required. I have my doubts, particlarly for after 1941, but lack any knowledge of the grain trade of the 1940s.

    I am also wondering where Spain accquired any oil it needed, or coal. Could Germany afford to allow Rumanian oil to be sold to Spain when its armed forces and industry were already short of requirements in 1941?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Lonewulf View Post
    I feel that is accurate, imagine a German Paratroop assault coupled with an Italian Shore landing and an overall Spanish attack from the land. I think that outta do it
    Paratroop assault landing on what?



    Shore landing where?



    Don't worry, there would be nothing the Axis planners could come up with that the defenders hasdn't thought about, thorougly prepared against and endlessly practiced for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lonewulf
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    True



    Just like Tobruk in '41, only much much tougher.
    I feel that is accurate, imagine a German Paratroop assault coupled with an Italian Shore landing and an overall Spanish attack from the land. I think that outta do it...if the Italians could get there with the Navy intact, and also to make sure the Germans had Air Supremacy and to also verify the Spanish didn't have second thoughts.
    Last edited by Lonewulf; 08 Oct 08, 22:00. Reason: minor modification

    Leave a comment:


  • Emil_G
    replied
    There was "The Blue Division", I doub't Spain could have made a larger contribution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Lonewulf View Post
    If it is or is not unattainable, the allies certainly cannot use it as an active base in 42',
    True

    however I believe it could very well be taken, perhaps at high cost but it could be taken.
    Just like Tobruk in '41, only much much tougher.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lonewulf
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    If Franco waits until 1942 (why?) Gibraltar is untakeable.

    What forces does Spain possess that would be a threat to a force the size of Operation Husky?
    I think the Allies have to grab the essentially indefensible Canary Islands as a precursor though.
    If it is or is not unattainable, the allies certainly cannot use it as an active base in 42', unless they planned to invade Spain from there which they wouldn't, however I believe it could very well be taken, perhaps at high cost but it could be taken.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X