IF the Turks had joined the Axis in time for the 1942 offensive - Axis amphibious operations in the Black Sea?

[Carl Schwamberger]

All I know is they had some sort of 'port operations group', to use the US term. But what that consisted of I don't know. Beyond that they relied on the Italians a lot. In the case of Riga, Tallinn, & other Baltic ports, or the Norwegian ports they relied on the local population to continue doing their usual job at port ops & construction. In those cases the Todt Organization & the Navy would have had a role as well.


As before, success depends on the staff/s responsible for this op making the best use of the 5+ months to prepare. Anyone here have opinions of the Germans at staff work?

[daveshoup2MD]

All I know is they had some sort of 'port operations group', to use the US term. But what that consisted of I don't know. Beyond that they relied on the Italians a lot. In the case of Riga, Tallinn, & other Baltic ports, or the Norwegian ports they relied on the local population to continue doing their usual job at port ops & construction. In those cases the Todt Organization & the Navy would have had a role as well.


As before, success depends on the staff/s responsible for this op making the best use of the 5+ months to prepare. Anyone here have opinions of the Germans at staff work?

Well, they lost two world wars in a row, so that presumably suggests German staff work may not have been all its cracked up to be ...

[Carl Schwamberger]

Thats been raised a number of times before. The usual conclusion after discussion is the failure was at strategy & not tactics or operations.

[daveshoup2MD]

Thats been raised a number of times before. The usual conclusion after discussion is the failure was at strategy & not tactics or operations.

Do logistics in North Africa count as strategic-level staff work or operational-level staff work?

[Carl Schwamberger]

Operational. The Italians had the strategy side of it by default & German thinking in that theatre wa a bit muddled over strategy. Someone once described the Germans in Africa as a dog following another dog chasing a car.

[daveshoup2MD]

Operational. The Italians had the strategy side of it by default & German thinking in that theatre wa a bit muddled over strategy. Someone once described the Germans in Africa as a dog following another dog chasing a car.

I suppose, but would anyone call what the Italians tried to do in Africa "strategy"? More forward slowly into Egypt and stop to build forts for a largely straightleg infantry-centered field army, settle in, and then wait for the motorized British (and Indians, and Australians, etc.) to grind up entire said field army?

It's not QUITE the 17th battle of the Isonzo, but you can see it from there.

I like the dog chasing another dog chasing a car concept; Die Panzerarmeehundafrika?

[Carl Schwamberger]

The original italian strategy was to seize some Egyptian border country as a bargaining piece for the Grand Peace Talks everyone expected after the French collapsed and Brits asked for a Armistice. After that it was a vaguer idea of defeating the British in Egypt and the Royal Navy, some how. Maybe make the war to costly for the Brits to continue. The problem with analyzing any Axis strategy is it was set by a pair of men of questionable ability at it. The military leaders, like Halder & others did what they could, but their masters were setting the goals. Not unlike the Kaiser in the Great War. His political goals carried Germany into a increasingly difficult position pre 1914. & post 1914 there were additional blunders, like antagonizing the US.

[daveshoup2MD]

The original italian strategy was to seize some Egyptian border country as a bargaining piece for the Grand Peace Talks everyone expected after the French collapsed and Brits asked for a Armistice. After that it was a vaguer idea of defeating the British in Egypt and the Royal Navy, some how. Maybe make the war to costly for the Brits to continue. The problem with analyzing any Axis strategy is it was set by a pair of men of questionable ability at it. The military leaders, like Halder & others did what they could, but their masters were setting the goals. Not unlike the Kaiser in the Great War. His political goals carried Germany into a increasingly difficult position pre 1914. & post 1914 there were additional blunders, like antagonizing the US.

Fair summary; I'd extend it to the Japanese as well.

Step 1: Head towards foolish Americans;
Step 2: Foolish Americans fall into trap;
Step 3: Americans emulate Russians of 1905 and ask for armistice;
Step 4: Profit!

[glenn239]

I suppose, but would anyone call what the Italians tried to do in Africa "strategy"?

Insofar as Italy had a strategy in WW2, it was the assumption that with the fall of France the Italians could scoop up prizes before the British made peace. As the wind started blowing the other way, the Italian strategy remained nearby to its traditional roots, by attempting to flip over to the other side.

[glenn239]

Fair summary; I'd extend it to the Japanese as well.

Step 1: Head towards foolish Americans;
Step 2: Foolish Americans fall into trap;
Step 3: Americans emulate Russians of 1950 and ask for armistice;
Step 4: Profit!

The Russians asked for an armistice in 1905*, not 1950, so your timeline on world history is a little off. In 1950 the Russians were arming the Koreans against the Americans and their allies. This itself was possible only because the Americans had spectacularly botched the end of the Pacific War in Asia.

* The Russians didn't ask for an armistice in 1905. They entered into peace negotiations, and when these were completed, the war ended and the fighting stopped.

[glenn239]

The problem with analyzing any Axis strategy is it was set by a pair of men of questionable ability at it. The military leaders, like Halder & others did what they could, but their masters were setting the goals.

I think in a vague manner you are suggesting that Hitler was the key in the frustration of Mussolini's war strategy, insofar as Mussolini had one. If so, I would agree; it was Hitler that committed the folly of invading the USSR, led the Axis in pointless negotiations with Japan, and first declared war on the United States, (after which Italy was as good as dragged in, and declared war as well).

[daveshoup2MD]

Fair summary; I'd extend it to the Japanese as well.

Step 1: Head towards foolish Americans;
Step 2: Foolish Americans fall into trap;
Step 3: Americans emulate Russians of 1950 and ask for armistice;
Step 4: Profit!

The Russians asked for an armistice in 1905*, not 1950, so your timeline on world history is a little off. In 1950 the Russians were arming the Koreans against the Americans and their allies. This itself was possible only because the Americans had spectacularly botched the end of the Pacific War in Asia.

* The Russians didn't ask for an armistice in 1905. They entered into peace negotiations, and when these were completed, the war ended and the fighting stopped.

It was type - the "05" and "50" presumably should have clued you in, but whatever.

The US war effort that led to the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan's armed forces and the US occupation of Japan and conversion of the most militarily effective Axis sea power to a loyal member of the Western alliance system during the Cold War was "spectacularly botched"?

Okay, that's "one" way to read it...