The Whale has Wings

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Gannt the Roundhead

On the Balkans while a Salonika might be sort of feasible and might be attractive to Churchill and Atlee and is certainly a threat that the Germans can't ignore (as is a Bulgarian defection if Italy goes) I can't see it except as an endrun in the event of German collapse. It brings the British up against the the main German armies and neither the US or France would support it. Or Brooke and the CoS.

The fact is that the rail net in Bulgaria runs northwest to southeast right though the middle of the country, allowing quick deployment of Axis troops facing an invasion from Greece while the British are struggling to get established at one single (though major) port in Central Thrace. Plus the terrain in Bulgaria and LOCs are far more open than the rough terrain in Thrace and Macedonia.

[wietze]

good topographic map of that area - http://goodhealth.freeservers.com/ba...raphic_map.jpg

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

The fact is that the rail net in Bulgaria runs northwest to southeast right though the middle of the country, allowing quick deployment of Axis troops facing an invasion from Greece while the British are struggling to get established at one single (though major) port in Central Trace. Plus the terrain in Bulgaria and LOCs are far more open than the rough terrain in Thrace and Macedonia.

Just one problem with that. The Bulgarian rail net is rather weak on international connections. There's basically six single track lines, three into Romania, one into Serbia, one into Turkey and one into Greece. There is no connection to Macedonia. Moving troops within Bulgaria, pretty decent, moving troops from other places to Bulgaria, not so good.

[AndyF]

Originally Posted by wietze

good topographic map of that area - http://goodhealth.freeservers.com/ba...raphic_map.jpg

Thanks Wietze! Much better than mine

Thanks for reinforcing my point guys. Yes Iain, I know 5 single tracks isn't that good, but it's better than 1 & 4 roads!
Axis transport into Bulgaria = good, Allied transport through Greece = awful.

[AndyF]

Originally Posted by paulo

You call that food ?
brrrr



I prefer this

Is that crab? Or Lobster?

Meat pie floaters, shellfish, pork pies, Surströmming (herring!), airline sandwiches...
Next it'll be Marmite or Vegemite butties
Oh bugger, I'm starving now LOL

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by AndyF

Is that crab? Or Lobster?

Meat pie floaters, shellfish, pork pies, Surströmming (herring!), airline sandwiches...
Next it'll be Marmite or Vegemite butties
Oh bugger, I'm starving now LOL

And I've just had my appetite killed.

[Captain Jack]

Originally Posted by Wet Coast

It was my understanding that Portugal only agreed to sell tungsten to Germany after a couple of incidents where Portuguese flagged vessels were "accidentally" sunk by UBoats. Tungsten sales to Germany were strictly cash and carry whereas sales to the Brits had very generous credit terms.

I hadn't heard of the incident with the U-boats. I was under the impression that Portugal was always willing to sell tungsten to Germany but as the war progressed other sources dried up and Germany was left dependent on Portuguese ones. You're correct on the terms of sale. Portugal demanded payment in gold and refused German offers of credit lines in exchange for the tungsten.

[/QUOTE]I'm thinking Portugal was wary of which way the Spanish were going to jump and just wanted to stay out of the line of fire.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Portugal's policy was to prevent itself from becoming involved in the war and to profit as much as possible from it. A large part of that was keeping an eye on Spain's position and making itself valuable enough to both sides that neither would want to attack.

I think that Portugal has even less reason ITTL to side with the Allies than it did OTL precisely BECAUSE the Allies are doing better.

[AndyF]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

And I've just had my appetite killed.

Clam Chowder? I got lucky & found a restaurant locally that delivers... It's not quite best New England standard, but...

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by AndyF

Clam Chowder? I got lucky & found a restaurant locally that delivers... It's not quite best New England standard, but...

I used to take New England Clam Chowder intravenously. Not anymore.

[Sior]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

I used to take New England Clam Chowder intravenously. Not anymore.

I see your Clam Chowder
and raise you TRIPE

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Sior

I see your Clam Chowder
and raise you TRIPE

Unlucky for you I know what tripe is. You like the stomach of a sheep!? No one in their right mind would want to eat something where the food isn't finished!*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-Dr. William F. Cosby

[perfectgeneral]

Originally Posted by AndyF

Is that crab? Or Lobster?

Meat pie floaters, shellfish, pork pies, Surströmming (herring!), airline sandwiches...
Next it'll be Marmite or Vegemite butties
Oh bugger, I'm starving now LOL

http://www.choate.com.au/Images/vecon.jpg


I'm just saying that beer leftovers are not the best spread in this genre. Even tripe would taste good in Vecon gravy.

It's no good, I feel like I'm posting it in if I don't ask 'what is going to happen?' I can't believe that in OTL Sicily leads to Italy and in this radically different circumstance Sicily leads to Italy, still? Come on, credit the Empire with an agenda that steers towards their needs and recognises the different opportunities. Every time you stick to OTL for no reason a butterfly dies.

I'm going to roll out the deeper historical pattern here. When the continent is in conflict and occupation against GB, what did they do on previous occasions? The Napoleonic 'Peninsula Campaign' sought a point on land that was hard to reach and supply by land and easy to reach by sea. Time and money were spent on fomenting revolt in occupied/subdued states. European trade was blockaded and continental fleets denied the open seas.

I think that the more Greek islands liberated the better, as far as Britain is concerned. The logistic argument for a mainland Greek Campaign is weak as yet, but a 'Lines of Torres Vedras' style limited engagement of opportunity off the coast seems likely. The more island air bases and invasion port infrastructure the Empire can sponsor, the better. It puts pressure on the axis using resources that will boost postwar island trade and good will. Crossing the Pyrénées (Balkans) is more endgame than initial strategy.

All the time the Greek State get's stronger and more focused on the islands, the better it is for Britain, both now and post war. More recruits for a stronger Greek ally. A government based on Crete takes on the old Minoan trader view of the eastern Med, more than the Balkan side show with islands off the coast. This war could be very good for Greece. Candidates for the low lying fruit of the Greek islands?

All the time Greece is gaining port infrastructure and airports, Britain is getting geared up at this kind of development. A useful transition industry for the immediate post war and a strengthening of power/trade projection at home.

Taiwan and Hainan/Guangzhouwan seem to offer a similar role off the coast of China.

The same argument works for Corsica. France gets stronger, and the mainland tyrant weaker. I feel we should be burning Copenhagen, but haven't come up with a reason for that yet.

[Shevek23]

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

I hadn't heard of the incident with the U-boats. I was under the impression that Portugal was always willing to sell tungsten to Germany but as the war progressed other sources dried up and Germany was left dependent on Portuguese ones. You're correct on the terms of sale. Portugal demanded payment in gold and refused German offers of credit lines in exchange for the tungsten.

Originally Posted by someone upthread

I'm thinking Portugal was wary of which way the Spanish were going to jump and just wanted to stay out of the line of fire.

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

Yes. Portugal's policy was to prevent itself from becoming involved in the war and to profit as much as possible from it. A large part of that was keeping an eye on Spain's position and making itself valuable enough to both sides that neither would want to attack.

I think that Portugal has even less reason ITTL to side with the Allies than it did OTL precisely BECAUSE the Allies are doing better.

That would seem to put the kibosh on a notion I was kicking around earlier this morning for yet another harebrained land front to engage the Germans on--The Iberian Front!

I quite appreciate that neither Spain nor Portugal wanted to get drawn into the war.

But it does seem to me that with Britain in a stronger position, the UK has more leverage to demand that Portugal stop allowing the Germans access to tungsten on any terms. It's a very different situation from the Swedes continuing to sell iron to the Nazis; the Swedes were completely surrounded by Nazi allies or conquests and even before Hitler took Norway and came in on the Finnish side as part of his attack on the Soviets, Sweden was already largely at Germany's mercy.

Portugal on the other hand is much more at Britain's, and as US power builds, America's mercy.

I can see how it was that in OTL the Anglo-Americans didn't have quite enough leverage to attempt to forbid Portugal selling tungsten to the Germans, but I think here in this timeline they have more, much earlier. So it's a question of how much could they hurt the German war effort simply by cutting off their tungsten supply? If the stakes are high enough, I can see it becoming a hard demand the Western Allies make, bearing in mind that if Salazar threatens to join the Axis, the Anglo-Americans can simply cut off all their colonies, forever, as well as shut down their overseas trade.

So, seeing that, suppose Salazar tries to stall by saying "Ah, but what if Franco throws in with Hitler and my poor country is invaded?"

If the western allies are serious about cutting off Hitler's access to tungsten, they will need to leverage Franco too then. Franco in turn could legitimately be worried about the prospect of a German attack on the northern border with France. The W-Allies would have to offer to commit some forces to guard that border, and yet promise not to use them to attack Hitler's France unless the Germans strike first. So such forces would be tied down uselessly, it would seem, and still from Franco's point of view be a dangerous provocation of Hitler and at the same time a dangerous Trojan Horse of Allied force on his own soil. It would be a hard sell.

Again the question is, just how crippling would it be to Hitler to lose access to Portuguese tungsten?

Because if Franco could be persuaded (and it might take a combination of painful arm-twisting and heavy bribery to do it, if it could be done at all) and Hitler is pretty much forced to go ape and invade Spain---

What the western Allies need at this point is a battlefield on which they can engage German forces directly. If they can assure Franco they can move enough forces in quickly enough that the battlefield won't be on Spanish soil but on French, they might be able to get it.

Now I don't think they are ready for that yet. But it could well be that it makes a lot more sense to try for this Pyrennian front rather than to try to invade via the Balkans or wait until enough force is massed for Overlord.

Not this year, but a year hence, can the Americans supplement the British forces enough so that they can pledge to move in enough force to shore up the northern Spanish border fast enough that the Wehrmacht won't get through to Spanish soil, and fight their way north from there?

If they can do this, they not only gain the needed land front striking near the core of German strength but also cut the German war machine off from a vital supply.

It again hinges on how important tungsten is, whether the Germans really had no alternate supply, and whether Salazar and Franco could be somehow brought on board.

Now the more I think about it, the more harebrained and far-fetched this scenario seems. I presume Hitler did OTL have a substantial force already based on the Spanish border, and only Spanish neutrality prevented that force from coming into Spain and reinforcing its defenses? Presumably he'd have that here too, and there's no reasonable way Spain could be brought on the Allied side, not even as a neutral leaning Westward enough to stop the tungsten trade. (I presume the Germans brought their tungsten to the Reich overland, through Spain and Vichy France, because sending it north to French ports in ships would be too risky as the RN would capture the ships or the RAF would sink them, as war contraband.)

But the flip side of it, OTL and ITTL, is that both Franco and Salazar are locked into neutrality--if they won't go west, they can't go east either because then the gloves are off and the Allies might take the opportunity to establish a beachhead in Portugal or Spain before the Germans can help either dictator reinforce their defenses well enough, and then gradually fight their way to France and northeast from there. Not to mention stripping them both of their overseas colonies and all that.

So I guess cutting off the Reich's tungsten is out, until the Allies can conquer at least southern France by another route. But neither do the Allies have to worry about Portugal or Spain turning on them either.

Well, I guess this clears up the mystery of Portuguese neutrality then!

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by perfectgeneral

It's no good, I feel like I'm posting it in if I don't ask 'what is going to happen?' I can't believe that in OTL Sicily leads to Italy and in this radically different circumstance Sicily leads to Italy, still? (1) Come on, credit the Empire with an agenda that steers towards their needs (2) and recognises the different opportunities. Every time you stick to OTL for no reason a butterfly dies. (3)

1) Logistics, and that they knew what they were doing OTL?

2) And how far can they go with that, running a war that fits "their needs"? If the USA did that, would they not be fighting to subdue the U-Boats, and then throw everything they have against Japan?

3) And another butterfly prepares to be born later on.

I'm going to roll out the deeper historical pattern here. When the continent is in conflict and occupation against GB, what did they do on previous occasions? The Napoleonic 'Peninsula Campaign' sought a point on land that was hard to reach and supply by land and easy to reach by sea. Time and money were spent on fomenting revolt in occupied/subdued states. (4) European trade was blockaded and continental fleets denied the open seas. (5)

Napoleon was a different Anti-Christ than Hitler. Wellington could afford to withdraw from the scene of battle and evacuate his main army back to Portugal or by sea. Nappy didn't have the troop concentrations or even believe it or not bloodthirstiness of the Nazis in terms of retribution meted out to civilian populations. When territory recently liberated by the Allies was taken back by the Nazis the results were generally pretty gruesome, SS troops or not.

If the British are going to go in somewhere, they damn well better be sure they are there to stay, otherwise, it'll be the local Greeks who pay for it.

4) Napoleon did not have the advantage of the Gestapo.

5) Nor the Luftwaffe and a U-Boat arm.

I think that the more Greek islands liberated the better as far as Britain is concerned. The logistic argument for a mainland Greek Campaign is weak as yet, but a 'Lines of Torres Vedras' style limited engagement of opportunity off the coast seems likely. The more island air bases and invasion port infrastructure the Empire can sponsor, the better. It puts pressure on the axis using resources that will boost postwar island trade and good will.

The problem is that it will have to be an entirely British operation. With Japan in the war, London may get some New Zealanders, MAYBE South Africans, VERY MAYBE Canadians, but probably not Indians (Burma) and certainly not Australians (Malaya/Thailand/DEI/New Guinea). No Americans, of course. Even Churchill was taken aback by the degree of Marshall's opposition to American troops being anywhere near the Eastern Med.

All the time the Greek State get's stronger and more focused on the islands, the better it is for Britain, both now and post war. More recruits for a stronger Greek ally. A government based on Crete takes on the old Minoan trader view of the eastern Med, more than the Balkan side show with islands off the coast. This war could be very good for Greece. (6)

6) Yes. But unless the Soviets are butterflied far worse ITTL, they will still be in position to support the Greek Communists in the north, and get a civil war going regardless.

[usertron2020]

Shevek23

Check out some pictures of the Pyrennes and their levels of elevation. If the Allies landed in Iberia, no one would be happier than Hitler.

[perfectgeneral]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

1) Logistics, and that they knew what they were doing OTL?

2) And how far can they go with that, running a war that fits "their needs"? If the USA did that, would they not be fighting to subdue the U-Boats, and then throw everything they have against Japan?

3) And another butterfly prepares to be born later on.



Napoleon was a different Anti-Christ than Hitler. Wellington could afford to withdraw from the scene of battle and evacuate his main army back to Portugal or by sea. Nappy didn't have the troop concentrations or even believe it or not bloodthirstiness of the Nazis in terms of retribution meted out to civilian populations. When territory recently liberated by the Allies was taken back by the Nazis the results were generally pretty gruesome, SS troops or not.

If the British are going to go in somewhere, they damn well better be sure they are there to stay, otherwise, it'll be the local Greeks who pay for it.

4) Napoleon did not have the advantage of the Gestapo.

5) Nor the Luftwaffe and a U-Boat arm.



The problem is that it will have to be an entirely British operation. With Japan in the war, London may get some New Zealanders, MAYBE South Africans, VERY MAYBE Canadians, but probably not Indians (Burma) and certainly not Australians (Malaya/Thailand/DEI/New Guinea). No Americans, of course. Even Churchill was taken aback by the degree of Marshall's opposition to American troops being anywhere near the Eastern Med.



6) Yes. But unless the Soviets are butterflied far worse ITTL, they will still be in position to support the Greek Communists in the north, and get a civil war going regardless.

1) Kesselring showed them that Italy could only be a spoiling action. US politics had something to do with the target selection. It was a compromise, not GB getting her way. Churchill has other ideas.

2) If USA did that they would be the Arsenal of Democracy and refusing to lend to the allies.

3) Yeh, this was more a 'sig me' reference to Tinkerbell, but other butterflies mourn the loss.

4) And Pitt didn't have the SOE. Plus ça change for Hitler.

5) Getting into tactics and counter tactics, but the same holds true for both U-boats (Hedgehog, ASW aircraft, MAC/escort carriers) and the Luftwaffe (USAF and RAF)

6) The communist resistance elements are more likely to be counterbalanced by greater and earlier WA action.

Yes any territory developed as a coastal threat should be ensured safety from Axis (re)capture. Crete could still be lost if the Axis made that their top priority, but it isn't and won't be. This death of a thousand cuts strategy has no key point of threat, just lots of potential/small threats that drain the Axis effort all over. Build up the threats evenly and things just get worse and worse for the continental defender.

Limnos is about 1000 miles from Kerch, Crimea, pretty much the same as Samos, as the crow flies, but the overflight ban of neutral Turkey makes Limnos much closer than the Dodecanese islands. Not only could an air base harass Bulgaria, but it could fight through to reinforce the Soviet air force.

Flying in the face of the gist of this post:
Bulgarian forces in Greece
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=45688

The Bulgarians assigned c 25% of their II Corps to securing the interior of
Thrace up to the mountain passes into Bulgaria itself. This led to disagreements with the Germans who wanted stronger coastal defences.

Handy maps of DEI:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/006_maps.html

Anyone have anything on the Soviet Danube Campaign? In September 1944 the USSR declared war on Bulgaria. I think Churchill would like to be in a position to head that off, Maybe even drive up the Danube on the opposite bank to the Soviet forces.

[usertron2020]

perfectgeneral

Good points all.

Save one. If the Allies intend to support the Soviets in the Black Sea there is a big problem the Allies don't know about. I assume these flights will involve landing in Russia to re-fuel, yes? Well, Stalin gave strictest orders that no Soviet assets whatsoever were to be dedicated to the protection of Murmansk Convoys. This order was extended regarding the one time the USAAC tried shuttle-bombing to Russia. The Luftwaffe simply followed them and slaughtered the force on the ground. Not one Soviet fighter rose in their defense. Maybe this will be the "Plan", but it won't last past the first mission. Don't forget that in Stalin's mind it's the "Imperialists" who are always the main enemy.

[Wet Coast]

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

I hadn't heard of the incident with the U-boats. I was under the impression that Portugal was always willing to sell tungsten to Germany but as the war progressed other sources dried up and Germany was left dependent on Portuguese ones. You're correct on the terms of sale. Portugal demanded payment in gold and refused German offers of credit lines in exchange for the tungsten.

I'm taking this from a reference I read a few years ago and can't find in my library now , so its quite possible that I'm misremembering what I read. Uboat.net lists 7 Portugese vessels attacked by Uboats but all of them are expained as either mistaken identity or not showing neutral markings. (not that a Uboat captain would ever lie, would they? )

As I understand it Germany put the full court press on Portugal after it lost access to Soviet sources of supply for tungsten and Portugal eventually embargoed tungsten sales to Germany in 1944.

[perfectgeneral]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

perfectgeneral

Good points all.

Save one. If the Allies intend to support the Soviets in the Black Sea there is a big problem the Allies don't know about. I assume these flights will involve landing in Russia to re-fuel, yes? Well, Stalin gave strictest orders that no Soviet assets whatsoever were to be dedicated to the protection of Murmansk Convoys. This order was extended regarding the one time the USAAC tried shuttle-bombing to Russia. The Luftwaffe simply followed them and slaughtered the force on the ground. Not one Soviet fighter rose in their defense. Maybe this will be the "Plan", but it won't last past the first mission. Don't forget that in Stalin's mind it's the "Imperialists" who are always the main enemy.

Thank you. I'm just trying to keep the TL real on what GB might choose to do in 1942+.

Well If he lets them get destroyed, Stalin doesn't get them does he? Reinforcements or casualties, it's up to him. I was thinking more of fighters than bombers for the one-way journey. The more of a headache the Red Airforce causes the Luftwaffe the better. Especially near the Red Sea.

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by Sior

I see your Clam Chowder
and raise you TRIPE

Do I really have to play the Tête de Veau card....