Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Tank Warfare Tunisia 1943

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Tank Warfare Tunisia 1943 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tank Warfare Tunisia 1943 - 5/3/2017 1:58:45 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1693
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
quote:

warspite1 But the revolt happened in April 1941 when the pro-British regime was subject of a coup d'etat. Why would the British attack earlier i.e. why would they attack a pro-British Government? As for the assets required, the fighting in May to quell the revolt was undertaken with less than two divisions and a handful of aircraft. As for getting Syria 'out of the way' as said above, it could well be that they don't have to. If Spain joins the war then Hitler has paid the price, and if Hitler has paid Franco's price then the whole point of Vichy's existence, and Petain's gameplan, has exploded in his face. The writing for Vichy is now clearly written large on the wall in 6 foot high letters. And it doesn't make for pleasant reading.... If not, then things are unlikely to change anyway. The need to take out the Vichy regime in Syria (Operation Exporter) only became apparent when Vichy allowed its airbases to be used to assist the Iraqi uprising. I don't think any early attack on this Vichy territory would have taken place as Wavell just didn't have the troops to spare if he was going to go on the offensive against Graziani.



I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

However, there were signs in early '40 when the government changed...to pro-Axis...but not sure that was apparent at first. Later that Summer (fall of France) the Iraqi govt. worked closely with the Italians and something about the Grand Mufti, etc...surely the British knew something was up by then? I'm assuming the Brits either didn't know, and/or didn't have the assets to do anything about it anyway.

If the Axis had accomplished some major victories the second half of '40 in the Med (Gib, Malta), this could have counter balanced the negative things (Libya). The negative results the Axis experienced were a cause for another change in govt. in Iraq.

Originally I was responding concerning: "The Axis wont be getting any oil from installations in Iraq for at least a year as these will be destroyed". I'm wondering when these might have been destroyed? (not saying they wouldn't or couldn't be, just asking). The Brits may have to take out the pro-Axis Iraqi govt. sooner than they did, especially if Axis gains in the Med kept the pro-Axis govt. propped up.


_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 31
RE: Tank Warfare Tunisia 1943 - 5/3/2017 5:32:01 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42856
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

quote:

warspite1 But the revolt happened in April 1941 when the pro-British regime was subject of a coup d'etat. Why would the British attack earlier i.e. why would they attack a pro-British Government? As for the assets required, the fighting in May to quell the revolt was undertaken with less than two divisions and a handful of aircraft. As for getting Syria 'out of the way' as said above, it could well be that they don't have to. If Spain joins the war then Hitler has paid the price, and if Hitler has paid Franco's price then the whole point of Vichy's existence, and Petain's gameplan, has exploded in his face. The writing for Vichy is now clearly written large on the wall in 6 foot high letters. And it doesn't make for pleasant reading.... If not, then things are unlikely to change anyway. The need to take out the Vichy regime in Syria (Operation Exporter) only became apparent when Vichy allowed its airbases to be used to assist the Iraqi uprising. I don't think any early attack on this Vichy territory would have taken place as Wavell just didn't have the troops to spare if he was going to go on the offensive against Graziani.



I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

However, there were signs in early '40 when the government changed...to pro-Axis...but not sure that was apparent at first. Later that Summer (fall of France) the Iraqi govt. worked closely with the Italians and something about the Grand Mufti, etc...surely the British knew something was up by then? I'm assuming the Brits either didn't know, and/or didn't have the assets to do anything about it anyway.

If the Axis had accomplished some major victories the second half of '40 in the Med (Gib, Malta), this could have counter balanced the negative things (Libya). The negative results the Axis experienced were a cause for another change in govt. in Iraq.

Originally I was responding concerning: "The Axis wont be getting any oil from installations in Iraq for at least a year as these will be destroyed". I'm wondering when these might have been destroyed? (not saying they wouldn't or couldn't be, just asking). The Brits may have to take out the pro-Axis Iraqi govt. sooner than they did, especially if Axis gains in the Med kept the pro-Axis govt. propped up.

warspite1

But there is a difference - in gaming terms - between a full blown revolt and a change of Government. Effectively this would be the British steaming in and overthrowing the Government. I am not saying this is impossible, but in gaming terms it means taking out, say a Division and the air assets, to act as occupation troops and a rule that says these units cannot leave the country. The bulk of these troops would be found - perhaps from India so no real effect on the units available to Wavell, while the...ahem...air assets would not have been used in Egypt anyway for their own safety.

As for when the British would destroy the two pipelines and the oil installations, I guess that would be whenever a decision is made that Egypt cannot be held.

Re the Germans counterbalancing the loss of Libya, I think there is a mix of 'what-if' scenarios here. If the British are strong enough to kick the Italians out of Libya before the Germans intervene - even though Hitler has agreed to a Med strategy - then this is Med War fantasy stylee. As you know I desperately want a Med War 1940-43 game and it would be nice to have a choice of a few 'what-ifs' thrown in, but personally, I think that the Med is incredibly interesting even without the 'what-ifs'.

What makes a 'what-if' fun depends on ones outlook and what is acceptable in terms of what they think is historically realistic. I would certainly like to explore a select number of 'what-if' scenarios. But I think there is a point at which such scenarios lose their value.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/3/2017 5:45:04 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 32
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Tank Warfare Tunisia 1943 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.157