Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 12157
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2021 06:58

10th Army was only a part of the Italian forces in Libya,there were also considerable forces in Tripolitania.
Total strength was in August 1940 205000,September 245000,in February 1941 129000 .
Source : Battistelli : Italian soldier in North Africa 1941-1943 PP 7 and 8 .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12157
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2021 07:35

Kingfish wrote:
05 Aug 2021 00:52





No, the reason was logistics. Had the Axis committed to improving the harbors of Benghazi and Tobruk - admittedly a huge undertaking - the other reasons you listed would disappear. Logistics was, and still is, the deciding factor for how big a military force can be deployed and maintained in the field.

Improving the harbors of Benghazi and Tobruk would not solve the problem,the problem was created by the fact that there was not enough road space for the thousands of trucks that every day were advancing to Egypt/returning to Tripoli .
From Tripoli to Egypt there was 2000 km of road space and a truck would need 3 weeks to go to Egypt .
The road space from Benghazi to Egypt was 800 km but a truck would not need 40 % of 3 weeks to go to Egypt,as there was less road space available for the same number of trucks,resulting in traffic congestions and a very low speed .
The same happened when Antwerp was captured in September 1944 :roads, railways and water ways could only transport a part of the needed supplies because of the destructions and the harsh winter .
The efficiency of a harbor depends not on the amount of goods than can enter the harbor,but on the amount of goods that can leave the harbor .
The only solution was to build more roads /more railway lines .
Other point : logistics is not the deciding factor for how big a military force can be deployed and maintained in the field , because there is also the presence of the enemy : if he is totally defeated and on the run,there is no need for a big military force and logistic problems disappear .
If the German forces opposing Patton in September 1944 were on the run,Patton would have no logistic problems and could cross the Rhine and advance to Berlin with one division .
It is the same for Russia in August 1941 : if the Soviets were on the run,there would be no logistic problems for an advance
with small forces to the AA line .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3314
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Takao » 05 Aug 2021 09:52

ljadw wrote:
04 Aug 2021 21:18
Takao wrote:
04 Aug 2021 19:52
ULTRA was responsible for about 46% of the ships sunk & 50% of tonnage sunk(including naval vessels).
No : that is not correct : these losses were caused mainly by aircraft and submarines and the only thing Ultra could say was that there was an Italian MV sailing in a certain direction and the submarines/aircraft had to search to find the ship .
On 100 ton of supplies that was sent to NA,15 tons were lost, or better 85 tons were not lost ,that proves that the reliability of Ultra was very low .
If Ultra was that reliable, why is the BP lobby saying that they were good for 7,5 tons of supplies on 100 that were sent ?
Just because you do not like the data does not mean it is incorrect.

During the period ULTRA was active, 185 Axis ships were used to supply NA. Ultra intercepts led to 86 of those being sunk. 356,698 tons were sunk out of 721,739.

Do the math...

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 05 Aug 2021 11:25

ljadw wrote:
04 Aug 2021 21:24
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
04 Aug 2021 19:53
ljadw wrote:
04 Aug 2021 15:38
The defeat of Rommel was not caused by the Italians who could not transport more supplies to NA:even with more supplies Rommel would still be defeated .
After the war, US needed a strong German army against the threat from the East . But there was a lot of opposition in Europe,to crush this opposition US needed to show a good and competent German general .
Rommel,who was dead,which is always a good point, could be presented as a good German ( he was sideways involved in the conspiracy against Hitler ),but was he competent ? He was twice defeated : in NA and in France .
The solution was easy : for NA it was enough to blame the Italians, given the anti-Italian racism and contempt in the US and Britain, every one would believe this fable .
For Normandy , an other excuse was invented : Hitler slept .
No one would dare to criticize Rommel ,and this would be very good for the career of Speidel .
Have you some evidences ?

It seems to me ljadw was make some biggest not real imaginations storys .

Ljadw was invent many things on topic
ljadw wrote:
04 Aug 2021 15:38
Only a part of what arrived at Tripoli was transported to the front ,and, if more arrived at Tripoli, less would go to the front .
Decreasing returns to scale .
Ljadw logic
10.000 tons was arrive on Tripoli 8.000 was transport on front.
15.000 tons was arrive on Tripoli 7.000 was transport on front.

15.000 > 10.000 If more arrived at Tripoli
7.000 < 8.000 Less would go to the front

Completest tosh
Never heard of the law of diminishing results ?
Yes. Also i can to understand what means law.
ljadw wrote:
04 Aug 2021 21:24
The more supplies arrived in Tripoli,the longer it would take to unload and stock them .
More supplies would need more depots who themselves would need more supplies and more supplies would need more trucks,POL,drivers,technicians,spare parts,and for this more MV would be needed,and more depots,which again would need more supplies .
And on what you was write it can to be mostest clear ljadw not understand law.

For sure ljadw not serious person for to discuss real history.

Again you was invent ljadw tosh for to write not real ljadw imaginations storys.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 05 Aug 2021 11:34

ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2021 07:35
Kingfish wrote:
05 Aug 2021 00:52





No, the reason was logistics. Had the Axis committed to improving the harbors of Benghazi and Tobruk - admittedly a huge undertaking - the other reasons you listed would disappear. Logistics was, and still is, the deciding factor for how big a military force can be deployed and maintained in the field.

Improving the harbors of Benghazi and Tobruk would not solve the problem,the problem was created by the fact that there was not enough road space for the thousands of trucks that every day were advancing to Egypt/returning to Tripoli .
From Tripoli to Egypt there was 2000 km of road space and a truck would need 3 weeks to go to Egypt .
The road space from Benghazi to Egypt was 800 km but a truck would not need 40 % of 3 weeks to go to Egypt,as there was less road space available for the same number of trucks,resulting in traffic congestions and a very low speed .
The same happened when Antwerp was captured in September 1944 :roads, railways and water ways could only transport a part of the needed supplies because of the destructions and the harsh winter .
The efficiency of a harbor depends not on the amount of goods than can enter the harbor,but on the amount of goods that can leave the harbor .
The only solution was to build more roads /more railway lines .
Other point : logistics is not the deciding factor for how big a military force can be deployed and maintained in the field , because there is also the presence of the enemy : if he is totally defeated and on the run,there is no need for a big military force and logistic problems disappear .
If the German forces opposing Patton in September 1944 were on the run,Patton would have no logistic problems and could cross the Rhine and advance to Berlin with one division .
It is the same for Russia in August 1941 : if the Soviets were on the run,there would be no logistic problems for an advance
with small forces to the AA line .

Improving the harbors of Benghazi and Tobruk would not solve the problem,the problem was created by the fact that there was not enough road space for the thousands of trucks that every day were advancing to Egypt/returning to Tripoli .

Yesterday you was write on ljadw invent law on diminishing results was be problem.

Now you was write it must to be roads.

Germany and Italy was have problems on capacitys on ports and on ships and on trucks and on policys.

Germany and Italy was not have problems on ljadw inventions.

Perhaps Germany and Italy was have no problems on Libya when Churchill was give permission for to advance and capture Tripoli on 11.febuary 1941.year.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12157
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2021 13:38

Takao wrote:
05 Aug 2021 09:52
ljadw wrote:
04 Aug 2021 21:18
Takao wrote:
04 Aug 2021 19:52
ULTRA was responsible for about 46% of the ships sunk & 50% of tonnage sunk(including naval vessels).
No : that is not correct : these losses were caused mainly by aircraft and submarines and the only thing Ultra could say was that there was an Italian MV sailing in a certain direction and the submarines/aircraft had to search to find the ship .
On 100 ton of supplies that was sent to NA,15 tons were lost, or better 85 tons were not lost ,that proves that the reliability of Ultra was very low .
If Ultra was that reliable, why is the BP lobby saying that they were good for 7,5 tons of supplies on 100 that were sent ?
Just because you do not like the data does not mean it is incorrect.

During the period ULTRA was active, 185 Axis ships were used to supply NA. Ultra intercepts led to 86 of those being sunk. 356,698 tons were sunk out of 721,739.

Do the math...
And, how long was ultra active ?
The Italian Merchant fleet supplied successfully the Axis forces in NA during three years .
In 1940 29000 soldiers were sent to NA (500 were lost ) and 298000 tons of supplies ( 7000 were lost )
1941 : 144000 soldiers ( lost 14200 ) and 853000 tons of supplies ( 162000 were lost )
1942 : 50000 soldiers ( lost 5400 ) and 875000 tons of supplies (lost 70000 )
1943 :39000 soldiers ( lost 3100 ) and 212000 tons of supplies (lost 102000 )
The number of ships that were lost is meaningless,as a lot of them were empty and a lot of them were very small . Thus 86 is not saying anything .The loss of 60 ships can be more important than the loss of 86 .
Other point : the number of lost supplies is irrelevant,what was deciding was the number of supplies that were transported and arrived ,and that was decided not by Ultra,but by Germany and Italy .
Last point : Ultra did not cause sinkings,as Ultra gave only a vague indication about the destiny ,speed, of Italian ''convoys '' and as the rate of sinkings was not different if Ultra operated or not .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3314
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Takao » 05 Aug 2021 15:36

ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2021 13:38
And, how long was ultra active ?
The Italian Merchant fleet supplied successfully the Axis forces in NA during three years .
In 1940 29000 soldiers were sent to NA (500 were lost ) and 298000 tons of supplies ( 7000 were lost )
1941 : 144000 soldiers ( lost 14200 ) and 853000 tons of supplies ( 162000 were lost )
1942 : 50000 soldiers ( lost 5400 ) and 875000 tons of supplies (lost 70000 )
1943 :39000 soldiers ( lost 3100 ) and 212000 tons of supplies (lost 102000 )
The number of ships that were lost is meaningless,as a lot of them were empty and a lot of them were very small . Thus 86 is not saying anything .The loss of 60 ships can be more important than the loss of 86 .
Other point : the number of lost supplies is irrelevant,what was deciding was the number of supplies that were transported and arrived ,and that was decided not by Ultra,but by Germany and Italy .
Last point : Ultra did not cause sinkings,as Ultra gave only a vague indication about the destiny ,speed, of Italian ''convoys '' and as the rate of sinkings was not different if Ultra operated or not .
The average ship sunk was 4,150 tons...Hardly "very small".

The number of ships lost is meaningless? How man tons of supplies would have been delivered if no ships were lost?

Other point...The number of supplies sent was decided by Germany and Italy...The number of supplies delivered was determined by Britain.(Remember your argument about Tripoli only depending on the Italians...Or have you forgotten that principal). Hence, Germany & Italy did not, and could not determine what supplies arrived, only Britain could.

Last point...Ultra put British ships and subs on to where the Italians were. Had Ultra not told them to go there, there would not have been there, and the chance would have been missed. Hence, Ultra was responsible for there sinking.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12157
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2021 16:48

Takao wrote:
05 Aug 2021 15:36


The number of ships lost is meaningless? How man tons of supplies would have been delivered if no ships were lost?

Other point...The number of supplies sent was decided by Germany and Italy...The number of supplies delivered was determined by Britain.(Remember your argument about Tripoli only depending on the Italians...Or have you forgotten that principal). Hence, Germany & Italy did not, and could not determine what supplies arrived, only Britain could.

Last point...Ultra put British ships and subs on to where the Italians were. Had Ultra not told them to go there, there would not have been there, and the chance would have been missed. Hence, Ultra was responsible for there sinking.
1 The number of ships : the number of supplies that was delivered ( not only in the Mediterranean,but also in the Atlantic ) was not depending on the number of available ships but on the number of available supplies .
Example :
in October 1941 6 Italian and 1 German MV were lost (tonnage 33471 GRT ).
First assumption : 4 were lost empty on their return to Italy : if they were not lost, it is not so that more supplies would be sent to NA .
Second Assumption : 3 were lost going to NA : if they were not lost ,their supplies would have been delivered once , but there is no proof that after returning to Italy, they could again transport additional supplies to NA because more available MV in the harbor of Naples does not mean that there would be more available supplies in Naples.
2 The number of supplies was decided by Germany (for the AK ) and by Italy ( for the Italian military and civilians ) .
It is not so that convoys with very small losses transported /unloaded more supplies than convoys with heavy losses ,because everything depended on the number of supplies that left Naples
Example :

January 1941 : 50000 GRT were transported and 49000 arrived losses 2 %
July 1941 : 77000 GRT were transported and 62000 arrived losses 19 %
Thus convoys with heavy losses can transport /unload more supplies than convoys without/with small losses .
3 Ultra and the aircraft and submarines : aircraft and submarines were not the slaves of Ultra . They were patrolling in the regions where it was suspected that convoys could sail and they did this even without Ultra .
1500 tons of supplies were lost in January 1941
10000 were lost in March 1942
1000 were lost in April 1942

It is not so that Ultra was working in March 1942 but not working in April 1942 .
Most Ultra messages were useless because they arrived too late,most of the others were useless because there were no aircraft/submarines available and a big part of the attacks failed because of the convoy escorts .
Otherwise the losses would be much bigger .
In June 1942 82,4 % of the fuel sent to NA arrived there .
In August it was only 58,%
In September 77,3 %
These differences can not be explained by the claim that Ultra was not good in June, very good in August and again not good in September .
Sigint does not decide the amount of losses or even if there will be losses .
Last edited by ljadw on 05 Aug 2021 17:10, edited 1 time in total.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 1979
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Gooner1 » 05 Aug 2021 17:06

ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2021 07:35
The road space from Benghazi to Egypt was 800 km but a truck would not need 40 % of 3 weeks to go to Egypt,as there was less road space available for the same number of trucks,resulting in traffic congestions and a very low speed .
Good point. In the 800,000 metres between Benghazi and Alexandria could only be fitted, nose-to-tail, One hundred and thirty three thousand average sized trucks.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 05 Aug 2021 18:01

ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2021 16:48

1 The number of ships : the number of supplies that was delivered ( not only in the Mediterranean,but also in the Atlantic ) was not depending on the number of available ships but on the number of available supplies .
Example :
Some time yes some time no.

When have more supplys than space on boats then number boats was be problem.

When have more space on boats than supplys then supplys was be problem

Some time problem was space on docks

Some rime other problems to

Again ljadw was invent story

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12157
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 05 Aug 2021 20:57

Gooner1 wrote:
05 Aug 2021 17:06
ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2021 07:35
The road space from Benghazi to Egypt was 800 km but a truck would not need 40 % of 3 weeks to go to Egypt,as there was less road space available for the same number of trucks,resulting in traffic congestions and a very low speed .
Good point. In the 800,000 metres between Benghazi and Alexandria could only be fitted, nose-to-tail, One hundred and thirty three thousand average sized trucks.
100 metres of distance per truck means 8000 trucks between Benghazi and Alexandria :4000 in each direction and very big congestions at Benghazi and Alexandria ,the speed of these trucks would even be lower than on the distance Tripoli-Benghazi

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3093
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 05 Aug 2021 23:48

ljadw wrote:
05 Aug 2021 07:35
From Tripoli to Egypt there was 2000 km of road space and a truck would need 3 weeks to go to Egypt .
Re-check your figures. 2000 km in 3 weeks works out to 95km/day, or (assuming a 12hr run/day) 8 klicks an hour.
The road space from Benghazi to Egypt was 800 km but a truck would not need 40 % of 3 weeks to go to Egypt,
But it's not 3 weeks because trucks generally drive faster than a person out for a brisk walk.
as there was less road space available for the same number of trucks,resulting in traffic congestions and a very low speed .
And it's not the same number of trucks. Historically the distance from Tripoli to the front required a significant number of trucks devoted to running fuel to way stations along the route of advance. By moving the supply hub closer to the front fewer trucks would be needed to service fewer way stations.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12157
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 06 Aug 2021 07:02

95 km per day would be a maximum, in the Winter it would be lower .
truck columns would have an average speed of 10 km per hour
the number of trucks required to run fuel to way stations was insignificant compared to the total number of trucks ;a big number of trucks carried their own fuel .
if the distance is shortened ,you need more road space otherwise you will have big problems .See what happened to Antwerp in 1944/1945 .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12157
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by ljadw » 06 Aug 2021 10:39

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
04 Aug 2021 18:13
ljadw wrote:
04 Aug 2021 11:33
Curiously ,(and it is very suspect )no information is available about the supplies and men that were received by 8th Army and no information are available about the loading/unloading and stock capacity of Alexandria.It is the opposite : everything is focused on Tripoli and the Italian convoys to NA.
Where have you looked?

Regards

Tom
A late answer : everywhere,but without results
There are a lot of informations about the convoys to NA and their losses and causes of their losses, of the unload and stock capacity of Tripoli,of the roads between Tripoli and Egypt, there is nothing about
the convoys from Liverpool to Alexandria, how much time they lasted, what they carried, what were their losses and the causes of these losses,roads/railways between Alexandria and the border, the amount of forces/supplies coming from East of Suez .
Van Creveld gives data about the consumption of fuel by Panzer Divisions, but not about the consumption of fuel by armoured divisions .
A lot is known about the activities of the LW, but not about the activities of the RAF .
Etc,etc

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3093
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Germany could win Barbarossa by suppressing Italy

Post by Kingfish » 06 Aug 2021 11:41

ljadw wrote:
06 Aug 2021 07:02
95 km per day would be a maximum, in the Winter it would be lower .
truck columns would have an average speed of 10 km per hour
Where are you getting your figures?
a big number of trucks carried their own fuel
.
Which reduced the space available to carry supplies, so its a wash
if the distance is shortened ,you need more road space otherwise you will have big problems .See what happened to Antwerp in 1944/1945 .
Here you are making the mistake of assuming the same number of trucks would still be required, but they wouldn't. Cutting the distance from supply hub to front line and back means fewer trucks would be required to deliver the same tonnage.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Return to “What if”