Talking Turkey: Alternate History from 1936

[Wraith11B]

Agreed. On a second note, should (but really, when) we proceed against Vichy, we need fast units: a division (but preferably two) of light armor, mechanized or motorized infantry supported by self-propelled artillery and light armored reconnaissance (armored cars) to rapidly move across the distances of North Africa. I doubt that Vichy really has any units present in North Africa which would be truly capable of offering resistance, and certainly none that could stand up to a fast division.

This is one of those times that I wish that 4CAV wasn't way in the east dealing with the future Japanese threat. That force would have been ideal for the rapid movement needed to deprive the enemy of these territories.

 

[roverS3]

I support @Wraith11B and @TheButterflyComposer 's assessments. As long as you stay out of British-claimed territory, anything Axis or Vichy is fair game. Let the British keep Egypt and Israel-Palestina, but take Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Sardinia, even Corsica could be fair game, if only as a bargaining chip. The US definitely won't care who holds those territories, as long as they remain stable and peaceful. They'll be happy for you to use those USMC Divisions in that area, if only for the propaganda value of it.

Fast Divisions don't need to be very powerful in North-Africa, you can probably get away with binary Motx2 or L Arm, Mot Divisions (maybe with some armoured cars sprinkled in for some Combined Arms bonus). If you can cut of the enemy's supply line, the rest doesn't really matter that much. There is definitely the potential to grab a lot of territory for only a little investment. Any Mediterranean real estate has strategic value, especially if it has a sizeable port and/or Air Base on it, not to mention the resources that can be found in the area. If you manage to take all that before going into Italy proper, the Med will almost become a Turkish lake, with only the côte d'Azur, the Spanish Coast, Egypt, Cyprus, and Malta in foreign hands. This is the best possible scenario, but even getting half of all that will be an impressive achievement.

Once the Axis is beaten, you can always go for round 2, and take over the remaining British territories, and maybe even the south of France. Considering the US is in the Comintern, they'll rather see those territories in the hands of the Turkey, than in pesky British hands. Then, once Comintern dominance is established, you can even go for Iberia, and possibly even India, though that's a stretch. As long as you keep the Americans happy, and don't start messing with the Soviet sphere of influence. There is an added benefit to all this. The more territory it grabs, the more Turkey becomes a real Major power, and an equal partner, in a post-war trilateral USA-USSR-UGNR world order.

 

[diskoerekto]

We have more than enough on our plates already, but if we're going to do something somewhere, taking on Vichy could have higher priority than Libyan desert, especially if that means we'll also land on south of France.

But I say we focus on the fight we have in our hands at the moment. I'd still say trying to find a place to land to European Italy should be the priority.

 

[roverS3]

But I say we focus on the fight we have in our hands at the moment. I'd still say trying to find a place to land to European Italy should be the priority.

As a counterpoint: Yes, a European landing will have more impact, but it will also require more troops and aeroplanes than a landing in Northern Africa. Instead of waiting for enough forces to become available for a European landing, let's use those Marines soon, and secure some more lightly guarded territory while we wait for reinforcements. That doesn't necessarily preclude a later European landing, in direct support of the Balkan offensive, or otherwise.

 

[Wraith11B]

I hadn't considered a light motorized infantry division, thank you for reminding me. I just considered the Light Armor since we already had the brigade putzing somewhere around. What's the OOB looking like these days? If you want I could give it the ol' Stahlpakt treatment!*

That said, none of the Vichy territories (aside maybe from Syria, and that's a stretch) are really any more "valuable" than Libya. Mussolini will go apoplectic when his Empire is stripped from him, but it doesn't harm them directly, and given the state that the Regia Marina is in, it's extremely doubtful that they have the assets to bring more reinforcements in, which makes the forces there essentially "on an island" and subject to rapid reduction and surrender.
____
* - Or maybe I should really focus on finishing the Italian, Japanese and Hungarian OOBs first, perhaps?

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Let the British keep Egypt and Israel-Palestina, but take Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Sardinia, even Corsica could be fair game, if only as a bargaining chip. The US definitely won't care who holds those territories, as long as they remain stable and peaceful. They'll be happy for you to use those USMC Divisions in that area, if only for the propaganda value of it.

As I see it, our main goals in building the post-war consensus will be trying to serve ourselves as a middleground between the two superpowers USA and SU. For that, we want to keep everything Turkey has already grabbed, and Italy and her islands solidly under our thumb/annexed. The rest, the middle east, north africa, other islands outside the med, these are all judt bargaining chips really to get what we want and raise our standing if we can keep them. Obviously if we can keep anything outside of Italy, it should be our middle east holdings and thjngs we're about to grab. Those lands are going to end up powering the modern world. North africa is more for prestige and trade ease rarher than geniune use, but would be nice to have. Anything else we can client/puppet state beneath us, or sell back to greatful allies for favour and reward.

We have more than enough on our plates already, but if we're going to do something somewhere, taking on Vichy could have higher priority than Libyan desert, especially if that means we'll also land on south of France.

But I say we focus on the fight we have in our hands at the moment. I'd still say trying to find a place to land to European Italy should be the priority.

Italy indeed should be the focus but we don't have the puff to land in France. We still should be part of the combined naval assault on europe so we can say we were later in negotiations, but really that's not our gameplan. Lets make it easy for the brits and amercians, taken the african ports and let them focus on france, while we go after our actual targets elsewhere.

As a counterpoint: Yes, a European landing will have more impact, but it will also require more troops and aeroplanes than a landing in Northern Africa. Instead of waiting for enough forces to become available for a European landing, let's use those Marines soon, and secure some more lightly guarded territory while we wait for reinforcements. That doesn't necessarily preclude a later European landing, in direct support of the Balkan offensive, or otherwise.

Mobility would be the key in africa, and any air power we can spare. If we have both, little should stop us aside from logistics.

That said, none of the Vichy territories (aside maybe from Syria, and that's a stretch) are really any more "valuable" than Libya. Mussolini will go apoplectic when his Empire is stripped from him, but it doesn't harm them directly, and given the state that the Regia Marina is in, it's extremely doubtful that they have the assets to bring more reinforcements in, which makes the forces there essentially "on an island" and subject to rapid reduction and surrender.

We're doing it to establish ourselves remember, much like in the balkans and in Persia, this is the start of our sphere expanding into africa the easiest route possible.

 

[diskoerekto]

As a counterpoint: Yes, a European landing will have more impact, but it will also require more troops and aeroplanes than a landing in Northern Africa. Instead of waiting for enough forces to become available for a European landing, let's use those Marines soon, and secure some more lightly guarded territory while we wait for reinforcements. That doesn't necessarily preclude a later European landing, in direct support of the Balkan offensive, or otherwise.

I mean if it's not going to take from our current theaters (against Japan we're barely holding the line, in Europe we're dancing on a thin rail) it's better than the marines just lying around, but if more is needed then I'd say pass. But again, if there's a way to make a landing in Europe somewhere anywhere, that should be the priority.

About a landing and need for air cover over it, if we land on an undefended province how long does the landing take anyway? How much casualty we'll take from that? Can't we restrict our fighter cover over a narrower area so we don't go and fight over heavy fixed AA batteries? I think instead of attacking Libya to gain some experience we can focus on these.

That said, none of the Vichy territories (aside maybe from Syria, and that's a stretch) are really any more "valuable" than Libya.

They still have half of France, right? I'm not saying we should attack them now but their territory is not really valueless.

Anything else we can client/puppet state beneath us,

I think when the war ends we should either make a minimod or add some countries by hand for proper puppets to release so that the map isn't an eyesore.

Italy indeed should be the focus but we don't have the puff to land in France. We still should be part of the combined naval assault on europe so we can say we were later in negotiations, but really that's not our gameplan. Lets make it easy for the brits and amercians, taken the african ports and let them focus on france, while we go after our actual targets elsewhere.

I say make Mediterranean our sea, why not focus on France ourselves?

Mobility would be the key in africa, and any air power we can spare. If we have both, little should stop us aside from logistics.

I think if we have low infrastructure compatible mobile units to spare we should use those in Central Asia and if we have air power to spare we should use it for a landing in Italy proper.

 

[roverS3]

About a landing and need for air cover over it, if we land on an undefended province how long does the landing take anyway? How much casualty we'll take from that? Can't we restrict our fighter cover over a narrower area so we don't go and fight over heavy fixed AA batteries? I think instead of attacking Libya to gain some experience we can focus on these.

With Marines and landing craft, it's actually pretty fast to get them on land, if the land isn't defended. Just Marines with 'Amphibious Warfare Equipment', in regular transports, is about a day iirc. The real problem is getting supplies to the units when they have already landed. Now, if you find an unoccupied port province, that's a jackpot, but those are pretty rare. Landing on an unoccupied province comes with the risk that you won't be able to capture a port before supplies run out. Even worse is the eventuality that an enemy attacks you before you get to a port, as you're technically encircled and cannot bring in reinforcements nor supplies to help with the fight. If at all possible, either a landing directly into the port, or 2 landings, 1 on either side of a lightly guarded port are the way to go. If this port is somewhat far away from other enemy units, that's even better. Of course, you can also pre-build a naval base and drop it in the landing zone to get troops in, but that does add to the cost of the operation, and the naval base still needs to get built for supplies to get through (something which is problematic if the beachhead is immediately attacked. If the new port is going to be needed later, that's fine, but if it's not, it's a bit of a waste.

 

[diskoerekto]

With Marines and landing craft, it's actually pretty fast to get them on land, if the land isn't defended. Just Marines with 'Amphibious Warfare Equipment', in regular transports, is about a day iirc. The real problem is getting supplies to the units when they have already landed. Now, if you find an unoccupied port province, that's a jackpot, but those are pretty rare. Landing on an unoccupied province comes with the risk that you won't be able to capture a port before supplies run out. Even worse is the eventuality that an enemy attacks you before you get to a port, as you're technically encircled and cannot bring in reinforcements nor supplies to help with the fight. If at all possible, either a landing directly into the port, or 2 landings, 1 on either side of a lightly guarded port are the way to go. If this port is somewhat far away from other enemy units, that's even better. Of course, you can also pre-build a naval base and drop it in the landing zone to get troops in, but that does add to the cost of the operation, and the naval base still needs to get built for supplies to get through (something which is problematic if the beachhead is immediately attacked. If the new port is going to be needed later, that's fine, but if it's not, it's a bit of a waste.

Now the question is, are there any undefended ports in mainland Italy?

 

[Wraith11B]

I mean if it's not going to take from our current theaters (against Japan we're barely holding the line, in Europe we're dancing on a thin rail) it's better than the marines just lying around, but if more is needed then I'd say pass. But again, if there's a way to make a landing in Europe somewhere anywhere, that should be the priority.

About a landing and need for air cover over it, if we land on an undefended province how long does the landing take anyway? How much casualty we'll take from that? Can't we restrict our fighter cover over a narrower area so we don't go and fight over heavy fixed AA batteries? I think instead of attacking Libya to gain some experience we can focus on these.

The problem is that we would quickly be faced with significant numbers of forces (I'd imagine) that would easily overwhelm our defenses in trying to SMELT our way ashore in France.

They still have half of France, right? I'm not saying we should attack them now but their territory is not really valueless.

They do, but a DoW against them sends them into the Axis, and that might mean significant naval forces released to Axis use, and certainly likely to overwhelm our small navy.

I say make Mediterranean our sea, why not focus on France ourselves?

Eventually, certainly.... the issue are those cited above. I'd say that we're trying to cut away the enemy's excess and rapidly (and cheaply!) degrade their forces in the field. Libya does that. Syria does not, nor does a direct assault against France right now.

I think if we have low infrastructure compatible mobile units to spare we should use those in Central Asia and if we have air power to spare we should use it for a landing in Italy proper.

I think the air force reconnaissance showed that was a bad idea for now.

With Marines and landing craft, it's actually pretty fast to get them on land, if the land isn't defended. Just Marines with 'Amphibious Warfare Equipment', in regular transports, is about a day iirc. The real problem is getting supplies to the units when they have already landed. Now, if you find an unoccupied port province, that's a jackpot, but those are pretty rare. Landing on an unoccupied province comes with the risk that you won't be able to capture a port before supplies run out. Even worse is the eventuality that an enemy attacks you before you get to a port, as you're technically encircled and cannot bring in reinforcements nor supplies to help with the fight. If at all possible, either a landing directly into the port, or 2 landings, 1 on either side of a lightly guarded port are the way to go. If this port is somewhat far away from other enemy units, that's even better. Of course, you can also pre-build a naval base and drop it in the landing zone to get troops in, but that does add to the cost of the operation, and the naval base still needs to get built for supplies to get through (something which is problematic if the beachhead is immediately attacked. If the new port is going to be needed later, that's fine, but if it's not, it's a bit of a waste.

I don't think that whatever forces are left to the Italians that they'd have much capability to withstand three Marine divisions. Gotta get those US Marines back "To the Shores of Tripoli!"

I think when the war ends we should either make a minimod or add some countries by hand for proper puppets to release so that the map isn't an eyesore.

I tried something similar, but it wouldn't let the nation to release the new nations unfortunately...

 

[nuclearslurpee]

Now, if you find an unoccupied port province, that's a jackpot, but those are pretty rare.

Someone tell mainland Japan!

I don't think that whatever forces are left to the Italians that they'd have much capability to withstand three Marine divisions. Gotta get those US Marines back "To the Shores of Tripoli!"

Definitely in favor of a symbolically-rich landing at Tripoli. IMO, it's good to split Libya with the Brits as a bit of a good-faith show, it's a fair trade if we land in the west and take half the country for ourselves, but the Brits still get to claim a conquest after the fighting and dying they've been doing in Egypt and eastern Libya. More subtly, it benefits us to give the British a little something to boost their own power levels, to act as a counterbalance in the post-war world as the only real non-Comintern power that can draw USSR/USA attention from Turkey should things go a bit to pot.

 

[Bullfilter]

Fantastic debate everyone! I will respond in time with some of my own thoughts, but keep it going if you wish: I have some short-form cricket finals on today and am in the middle of writing up the next chapter, so there’s the time for it.

Nothing like some Churchillian ideas for diversionary and ‘soft underbelly’ naval landings around the show to get the talk going!

 

[Wraith11B]

Someone tell mainland Japan!

Definitely in favor of a symbolically-rich landing at Tripoli. IMO, it's good to split Libya with the Brits as a bit of a good-faith show, it's a fair trade if we land in the west and take half the country for ourselves, but the Brits still get to claim a conquest after the fighting and dying they've been doing in Egypt and eastern Libya. More subtly, it benefits us to give the British a little something to boost their own power levels, to act as a counterbalance in the post-war world as the only real non-Comintern power that can draw USSR/USA attention from Turkey should things go a bit to pot.

Well, I'd imagine that after the war, the US isn't going to stick around in the COMINTERN... Capitalism and all that! They're going to protect their portion of the planet in the Western Hemisphere. Having a near monopoly on the (notional) future OPEC nations will definitely come in handy. I wouldn't let the British handle much of anything. Their empire is--well, as the US Liaison, I must be circumspect--crumbling around them. India is going to be a very large question mark post war, as are much of their colonial holdings. Let's be real: the US/USSR Cold War is likely going to happen. If it goes hot, we want to be able to pick the winner.

Fantastic debate everyone! I will respond in time with some of my own thoughts, but keep it going if you wish: I have some short-form cricket finals on today and am in the middle of writing up the next chapter, so there’s the time for it.

Nothing like some Churchillian ideas for diversionary and ‘soft underbelly’ naval landings around the show to get the talk going!

Do you know what a crumpet is... because according to a wise individual code-named "Rafael" one has to know that to know what Cricket is...

 

[Bullfilter]

Well, I'd imagine that after the war, the US isn't going to stick around in the COMINTERN... Capitalism and all that! They're going to protect their portion of the planet in the Western Hemisphere. Having a near monopoly on the (notional) future OPEC nations will definitely come in handy. I wouldn't let the British handle much of anything. Their empire is--well, as the US Liaison, I must be circumspect--crumbling around them. India is going to be a very large question mark post war, as are much of their colonial holdings. Let's be real: the US/USSR Cold War is likely going to happen. If it goes hot, we want to be able to pick the winner.



Do you know what a crumpet is... because according to a wise individual code-named "Rafael" one has to know that to know what Cricket is...

Haha, of course I know what a crumpet is (in all its meanings). I actually had a couple for breakfast just yesterday. No lie - only the truth here. We win our semi final but then lost the GF . Short form T20s (for those who know what that means), so about 2 hours a game, fast and furious.

In general, I’ll be mainly concerning myself with winning this war first and will do what it takes to hasten it. Winning, that is, rather than losing.

The debate above has been extremely useful in thinking through possible ‘sideshow’ options, I must say. Rest assured Inonu has read every submission carefully, but I hope you will forgive me if I don’t telegraph his decision.

 

[Wraith11B]

Haha, of course I know what a crumpet is (in all its meanings). I actually had a couple for breakfast just yesterday. No lie - only the truth here. We win our semi final but then lost the GF . Short form T20s (for those who know what that means), so about 2 hours a game, fast and furious.

I didn't think that there was anything "fast" or especially "furious" about Cricket...

In general, I’ll be mainly concerning myself with winning this war first and will do what it takes to hasten it. Winning, that is, rather than losing.

The debate above has been extremely useful in thinking through possible ‘sideshow’ options, I must say. Rest assured Inonu has read every submission carefully, but I hope you will forgive me if I don’t telegraph his decision.

We the readers demand to know soon! Though in TTL, the overall US Liaison here makes the point that the US would like to know so that we can organize our own operations to assist.

 

[Bullfilter]

I didn't think that there was anything "fast" or especially "furious" about Cricket...

You have much to learn, my young apprentice. One could (also perhaps unfairly) say the same about American Football, which to the casual observer seems to constitute a large amount of stoppages and time outs interrupted by the occasional smidgin of actual play! The Australian ‘Big Bash League’ is the main national ‘20/20’ comp. It’s title may hint at its nature a little. Quite different to Test Cricket, which is one for the connoisseurs, I’ll admit (also the superior version .

We the readers demand to know soon! Though in TTL, the overall US Liaison here makes the point that the US would like to know so that we can organize our own operations to assist.

If only! You know the reputation of the US AI in these games I’d love Agent Wraith11b to be running it instead. In game, they’re gonna have to wait a bit.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Definitely in favor of a symbolically-rich landing at Tripoli. IMO, it's good to split Libya with the Brits as a bit of a good-faith show, it's a fair trade if we land in the west and take half the country for ourselves, but the Brits still get to claim a conquest after the fighting and dying they've been doing in Egypt and eastern Libya. More subtly, it benefits us to give the British a little something to boost their own power levels, to act as a counterbalance in the post-war world as the only real non-Comintern power that can draw USSR/USA attention from Turkey should things go a bit to pot.

Well, I'd imagine that after the war, the US isn't going to stick around in the COMINTERN... Capitalism and all that! They're going to protect their portion of the planet in the Western Hemisphere. Having a near monopoly on the (notional) future OPEC nations will definitely come in handy. I wouldn't let the British handle much of anything. Their empire is--well, as the US Liaison, I must be circumspect--crumbling around them. India is going to be a very large question mark post war, as are much of their colonial holdings. Let's be real: the US/USSR Cold War is likely going to happen. If it goes hot, we want to be able to pick the winner.

Pretty much this. Everyone wants the British empire to go tits up, including these Brits it seems, since they don't seem interested in defending it. That isn't to say that they won't be absurdly rich after the war, because they will. They spent the entire war trading shit and not getting bombed. Still, India is leaving after the war, and Egypt certainly is. It's far more important that we make ourselves look useful to the Americans and Russians rather than the Brits, and that means undercutting them in Africa and Arabia whenever we can.

 

[Wraith11B]

Pretty much this. Everyone wants the British empire to go tits up, including these Brits it seems, since they don't seem interested in defending it. That isn't to say that they won't be absurdly rich after the war, because they will. They spent the entire war trading shit and not getting bombed. Still, India is leaving after the war, and Egypt certainly is. It's far more important that we make ourselves look useful to the Americans and Russians rather than the Brits, and that means undercutting them in Africa and Arabia whenever we can.

To be fair, we don't know that they haven't been getting bombed necessarily (unlike in @roverS3 's Odin game, where we definitely know that the Luftwaffe has been at least trying to get at the British Isles). Also, we don't know if (as occurred in OTL) the British had the scare of not having enough kit and basically shipping their entire treasury to the US.

 

[roverS3]

Also, we don't know if (as occurred in OTL) the British had the scare of not having enough kit and basically shipping their entire treasury to the US.

Considering the US is in the Comintern, and not in the Allies, the British shipping their entire treasury there seems highly unlikely...

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Considering the US is in the Comintern, and not in the Allies, the British shipping their entire treasury there seems highly unlikely...

Plus they haven't had a scare over not having enough kit, since they haven't bothered to fight a land war anywhere except with colonial troops anyway.