Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
World War II - West Front Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What About Crete-Cyprus-Syria?
Carl S    11/7/2005 6:34:27 AM
Gen. Student saw the Crete attack as the first step in a aibourne campaign aimed at Syria. From Crete the paras would lead the way to Cyprus, then to the ports of the eastern Levant (the Syrian/Palestinian) coast. Hitler did not buy off on this idea, citing the high casualties. experinced in Crete & Holland by the airbourne corps. Was Students idea practical? Did the Luftwafe & the Italian navy has the ability to pull this off?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4
Hamilcar       3/18/2010 8:09:30 AM

It did the British good in WW 1 & would have done the Germans good had they gone through through the east side of med sea.
Read about the First Iraq  War.
 
 
Summary: A German-led Ottoman army based on that German-built railroad and supplied by the Germans, fought the British. They lost.
 
 
SEAPOWER, as in the Germans had none, matters.
 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Black Hornet       3/18/2010 5:55:03 PM
Losing a war does not in any way indicate the rail system was not used & a valid transportation method used. Both sides used & benefitted by the use of rails in this region. German & Turks would not have ventured as far south as they did without them. Any way you shake it, you're entirely wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

Black Hornet       3/18/2010 5:57:44 PM
Seapower. Germans made use if Italian Seapower along with captured cargo vessels from Greece & Yugoslavia, enough to transport hundreds of tanks to Axis forces in North Africa. Another dismissed point.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       3/18/2010 6:59:45 PM

Seapower. Germans made use if Italian Seapower along with captured cargo vessels from Greece & Yugoslavia, enough to transport hundreds of tanks to Axis forces in North Africa. Another dismissed point.
 
Tanks had to be ferried across to North Africa in 3000-5000 tonne break bulk cargo ships with self unloading cranes and by ocean going train ferries. Italy had about 50-60 of those ships that could carry that cargo above hold for such unloading after severe hull modification. The maximum delivery capacity for them at any one time was measured in tens of tanks per convoy, not hundreds.    
 
Please don't be so arrogant that you think I don't know this subject backwards and forwards.  I certainly know by now that you don't know it at all.
 
H.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Black Hornet       3/20/2010 5:10:18 AM
The maximum delivery capacity for them at any one time was measured in tens of tanks per convoy, not hundreds.
 
I never mentioned that they all went in one Convoy. Please don't be posit things others havent stated so stupidly.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       3/20/2010 7:29:19 AM

The maximum delivery capacity for them at any one time was measured in tens of tanks per convoy, not hundreds.

 

I never mentioned that they all went in one Convoy. Please don't be posit things others havent stated so stupidly.


 
It is not my fault that you don't know what you discuss and make the statements you do. If you actually knew your subject....
 
 
It becomes quickly obvious that you know nothing when you made the comments about hundreds of tanks shipped across oceans dominated by Allied navies and into the teeth of allied air power. The very  reason that Rommel was supplied at all was because shore based air power cover could cover the SMALL Italian convoys that reached him from Sicily..
 
 
Learn.
 
H.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy