Some thoughts on the Italian Army's performance

[Dili]

In 1940 Italy had 7000 cars in Libya, there would be no place for 70000 cars .

You know that Via Balbia had >1700km which means that with 10 cars per km would mean 17000 cars in just one direction? 34000 both.

Yes it would be crowded with 70000 but that assumes all would be moving at same time, and no 20-30% in repairs.

Of course Italians 1940 had 270000 cars, 4500 bus, 86000 trucks in whole Italy.

[ljadw]

But the advance of 70000 trucks would be much slower than the advance of 17000 trucks .

[Ружичасти Слон]

But the advance of 70000 trucks would be much slower than the advance of 17000 trucks .

Complete tosh.

[ljadw]

1700 km would not be enough for 17000 trucks ,as a lot of road space would be needed for the waiting trucks who would have to wait hours before using the Via Balbia.It would also take a long time for the trucks to be loaded and to go to the Via Balbia .
It would take more than a week,maybe two weeks , before the first trucks would be at the end of the Via Balbia,and thus also for the last trucks to start their trip .Where would all these trucks wait during a week ?
Multiply this by 4 for 70000 trucks and the result would be a total chaos .

[ljadw]

But the advance of 70000 trucks would be much slower than the advance of 17000 trucks .

Complete tosh.

10 trucks advance faster than 100 trucks.This is something everyone knows .

[Ружичасти Слон]

But the advance of 70000 trucks would be much slower than the advance of 17000 trucks .

Complete tosh.

10 trucks advance faster than 100 trucks.This is something everyone knows .

Not something everyone knows.

I think it is complete tosh.

I can to imagine context where advance will to be faster on 100 trucks than 10 trucks. I think most contexts advance will to be faster on 100 trucks than 10 trucks.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A smaller supply line does not mean that you cannot supply the forces required to ''win '' the battle .
Why ? Because the supplies needed to supply the forces required to ''win '' the battle have nothing to do with your supply line .

That depends. When a visiting Stavka general, I forget whom, asked Chuikov what he needed to continue defending Stalingrad, his answer was two words: "more ammunition." The fact that supplies there had to be ferried over the Volga, often under fire, forced a natural limit. Then there's also the surrenders that have happened when units ran out of ammo (meaning, "insufficient supply").

A smaller supply line can be much easier to choke.

If you ''need '' 100 supplies to ''win '',and your supply line can deliver 150 ,150 is to big, thus is there no objection to go down to a smaller supply line of 100 .

Yes. And if you're only getting 70 supply units, that will affect the conduct of the battle.

Other points which are mostly overlooked by today's logistical lobby
1 Needs are estimations, guesses and mostly,they are inflated,for obvious reasons.There is no automatism between the ''needs'',what you receive and the chance to win .

Of course. Supplies are necessary, but not sufficient, to win a battle. Supply requisitions are often overstated, as you say, but that doesn't mean that sufficient supplies are not necessary.

2 The presence of the enemy : if the enemy is weaker than assumed, less supplies are needed than claimed .

Another very obvious point. The opposite is true as well: if the enemy is stronger than expected, you will need more supplies to both kill the enemy and move ammo to the front.

Last point : the paucity of tanks : I thought that the tank myth had been destroyed, but I see that this is not so : the truth is that there is no relation (causal or not ) between the number of tanks, even the existence of tanks and the chance/probability to win a battle .There are numerous battles that were won without the use, presence of tanks .There are also battles that were lost notwithstanding the use of tanks .

It's a good thing I wasn't arguing that tanks are required to win all battles, then. I was positing an example, not a general rule. I had thought that was obvious.

In the Malayan campaign,Japan used 200 tanks, but it is impossible to prove that they won because of these tanks ,or that without them,they would have lost .
Tanks are cavalry and cavalry does not win a battle but is used for the exploitation .

And tanks would have been quite useless at Coral sea, for that matter. However, in NA, the length and volume of supply-lines had an impact on the battles fought there. Or, in another example, the 1944 Ardennes offensive, which the Germans launched relying upon the capture of Allied fuel stocks. When insufficient fuel stocks were captured, that hampered their offensive.

See, I don't think logistics is the only requirement for winning a battle; and I think you're misreading me if you think I do believe that. However, I do know that logistics plays an important part in any campaign, because a soldier can only carry so much ammo, a vehicle can only carry so much fuel, and the varied machinery of modern war is useless without ammo, fuel, and spare parts being available when needed.

And that is called "supply."

You're wasting your time mate.

That appears to be the case.

By the way, just wanted to say I've appreciated reading your stuff both here and in other threads, you're a thoughtful guy.

10 trucks advance faster than 100 trucks.This is something everyone knows .

Yeah, but how quickly can fighting troops advance on such spare rations? That is the advance that matters.

[Urmel]

You're wasting your time mate.

That appears to be the case.

By the way, just wanted to say I've appreciated reading your stuff both here and in other threads, you're a thoughtful guy.

Thank you!

[Dili]

But the advance of 70000 trucks would be much slower than the advance of 17000 trucks .

You said that Italians did had 7000 trucks in Africa and were already reclaiming truck traffic issues.

[ljadw]

But the advance of 70000 trucks would be much slower than the advance of 17000 trucks .

You said that Italians did had 7000 trucks in Africa and were already reclaiming truck traffic issues.

If no supplies were lost ,and thus more supplies arrived at the ports,
this would not mean that more supplies could be unloaded(the unloading capacity was limited ),that more supplies could be stored ( the capacity of the depots was limited ),that more supplies could be transported to the front : the number of trucks could not be increased by some magician trick and if there were more trucks,this would increase the traffic problems .In November 1941 the convoy losses were 50000 ton,if they were not lost and arrived at Tripoli,were unloaded,were stored ,how many trucks and drivers would be needed to transport them to the front ?
It would take weeks,or months,and Rommel had not weeks or months, and would create enormous traffic problems.
If every day 1500 trucks were leaving the depots for the front and suddenly this number was doubled,it is obvious that the result would be an insoluble traffic chaos .
There were already very big problems with the use of the existing number of available trucks.
When Montgomery started his pursuit after Alamein, this was done with limited forces, not because he had not enough trucks to supply bigger forces, but because to use more trucks would create traffic problems and slow his advance .

[Ironmachine]

Tanks are cavalry and cavalry does not win a battle but is used for the exploitation .

Tanks are not cavalry and cavalry can win a battle (which does not preclude that it can be used for exploitation).
If you can't even get the the basics right...

[ljadw]

Tanks are motorized,armored cavalry .And cavalry does not win battles,but is used for exploitation .
Tank battles are not decisive and the majority of tank losses are caused by non combat factors .

[ljadw]

About Chuikov : he said that he needed more ammunition.Why ? Because there was big fighting against the German infantry which tried to capture Stalingrad .Thus his ammunition needs were caused by the enemy .And, when the fighting decreased, did he still need more ammunition ?
And, diid Chuikov detailed how much more ammunition he wanted ? In % ,or in absolute figures ?

[ljadw]

The whole discussion is founded on the lies of the Rommel lobby,i e that Rommel was a brilliant general,that he could/would/should have won in NA if the Italians had delivered the ''needed '' supplies,and that this victory should/would/could have changed the outcome of WWII .
That he was a brilliant general is questionable and also superfluous.
That his victory would /could/should have changed the outcome of WWII ,is neo-nazi propaganda .
That he could have won in NA is an invention .
That more supplies would /could/should have enabled him to win is very suspicious and also nonsense.
That the Italians did not deliver him the 'needed '' supplies is a lie,besides : no one can say what the needed supplies were .
I like to add also the following : we are discussing the impact of the supplies WITHOUT having the needed information about these supplies :
for the Axis: we have only the figures of the amount of supplies that arrived at the NA ports,not the amount of supplies that arrived at the front and when .Ammunition supplies in Tripoli did not help Rommel .
for the Allies : we have NOTHING . NOTHING .I have seen no figures of monthly arrivals of supplies for the 8th army,no figures of supplies arriving at the front or when .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You say,

"The whole discussion is founded on the lies of the Rommel lobby,.....that he could/would/should have won in NA if the Italians had delivered the ''needed '' supplied"."

Can we have some examples, please?

Cheers,

Sid.