phx1138
Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that.
Oh yes there are a lot of mountains on the Yugoslav borders with Hungary and Romania - not!
It difficult but, in the conditions we're talking about can be done a hell of a lot easier than the fight through N France and also a year or so earlier.
The problem is persuading the US of this! What you're describing is what happen OTL. From mid 42 the US insisted in building up large forces in Britain which wouldn't be of practical use for something like two years and were a considerable drain on Britain's resources while it was struggling with the U boat war. You're actually making my argument here.
Supplies for the Italian population is a problem but then a lot of shipping is freed up by not dumping huge forces in Britain where all they can do is consume resources. [Indirectly as well as directly. A lot of valuable farmland was lost when Britain was struggling to keep people fed!]
Which will be needed TTL or OTL if Italy is invaded, which you're opposing?
Its a possibility.
It was unclear what you were talking about in opposing an Italian campaign. Some of what you mention would be available by an islands only campaign but other factors wouldn't. Italy would still be in the war and its resources fully available to Germany while there would be less bases for threatening other areas.
I called your stance stupid because in the situation we're talking about now I'm confident it is. I reacted strongly because of you're personal abuse but haven't descended to you're levels. Suggest you read you're own posts.
That requires less forces to oppose than the threat of serious invasions that you oppose even thinking about.
I have. [/QUOTE]
Its the only one you will consider. Even if it was the right one OTL thats a hell of a lot less certain TTL.
Personally I think what makes you look like a fool is you're preference for personal abuse. If you had been willing to argue in terms of facts and opinions we could have been having a far better conversation here.
I repeat. I suggest you look at you're own posts.
Steve
Since the objective isn't the liberation of the Crimea, but the defeat of Germany, I'm not so sure.![]()
Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that.
As I look at it, there are some big damn mountains in between. With passes that could be defended by a couple of companies of mountain troops and a crate of grenades.I can just see an Allied armored division barreling into one of these passes & being buried under half a million tons of rock & snow.
Then, while the Allies dig them out, the Germans merrily snipe them & steal whatever they can get their hands on from the engineers.
![]()
Oh yes there are a lot of mountains on the Yugoslav borders with Hungary and Romania - not!
Or the Allies realize this is a stupid idea...![]()
It difficult but, in the conditions we're talking about can be done a hell of a lot easier than the fight through N France and also a year or so earlier.
Just because you can send men overseas doesn't mean you should. IMO, if they're better employed at home waiting to invade, rather than expending food & ammo & fuel & shipping by fighting someplace, they should damn well stay home.![]()
The problem is persuading the US of this! What you're describing is what happen OTL. From mid 42 the US insisted in building up large forces in Britain which wouldn't be of practical use for something like two years and were a considerable drain on Britain's resources while it was struggling with the U boat war. You're actually making my argument here.
Which did not take the full-scale invasion & the waste of manpower, material, &, most important, precious shipping Britain damn well can't afford.Not to mention the material, & more shipping, to supply Italian civilians, all of which Germany could easily have been forced to provide.
![]()
Supplies for the Italian population is a problem but then a lot of shipping is freed up by not dumping huge forces in Britain where all they can do is consume resources. [Indirectly as well as directly. A lot of valuable farmland was lost when Britain was struggling to keep people fed!]
Then there's the idea of Germany needing to pacify & occupy a hostile (if not actively belligerent) Italy...![]()
Which will be needed TTL or OTL if Italy is invaded, which you're opposing?
Then, perhaps, the prospect of turning Italian POWs into Allied troops. (AFAIK, not done OTL.)
Its a possibility.
I never said word one against this. I never said word one about this.Sicily, plus Sardinia & Corsica, would have achieved the same gains as Italy's mainland, at vastly less cost compared to the sustained campaign & continuing stalemate.
It was unclear what you were talking about in opposing an Italian campaign. Some of what you mention would be available by an islands only campaign but other factors wouldn't. Italy would still be in the war and its resources fully available to Germany while there would be less bases for threatening other areas.
I don't need you calling me stupid just because I disagree with you. Stop being a twat.
I called your stance stupid because in the situation we're talking about now I'm confident it is. I reacted strongly because of you're personal abuse but haven't descended to you're levels. Suggest you read you're own posts.
As for forcing precautions, what's wrong with using MTBs/MGBs & commando missions all up & down the coast of Italy? Plus a/c? Plus subs, while we're at it?
That requires less forces to oppose than the threat of serious invasions that you oppose even thinking about.
You sound like MacArthur.It's not the "only": it's the shortest. The idea isn't to make you happy, it's to win the damn war as rapidly as possible.
And since the OTL Chiefs are militarily better qualified than both of us, I'd say they looked at your options & found them wanting for valid reasons having not one damn thing to do with me, so do me a favor & quit trying to make out I'm stupid for thinking they might just be right.
![]()
I have. [/QUOTE]
Its the only one you will consider. Even if it was the right one OTL thats a hell of a lot less certain TTL.
Personally I think what makes you look like a fool is you're preference for personal abuse. If you had been willing to argue in terms of facts and opinions we could have been having a far better conversation here.
I repeat. I suggest you look at you're own posts.
Steve