NationStates Jolt Archive

Technology and NationStates

Regarding successful roleplay, technology is almost completely irrelevant when talking about good roleplaying and when considering roleplaying on NationStates. In other words, the difference between tank X and tank Y should play no part on the outcome of a roleplay in which they are characters. Technology ‘wanking’ – defined: using ‘technobabble’ to argue that because your weapon is better than your enemy’s, then you are automatically the winner – should not be a serious part of this game, and in fact the use of technology wanking has only led to the majority of roleplaying threads started on International Incidents to fail due to excessive out of character (OOC) argumentation on which weapon system is better and why certain weapon systems don’t work. Weapon design should probably be done because it interests you, as opposed to giving you any type of advantage in roleplaying. That is generally an ideal that the NS Draftroom likes to follow and this is represented by the knowledge offered by its members. For example, although it’s not noticeably large (yet), the NS Draftroom includes a ‘PDF library’ which is a collection of uploaded papers in PDF form which can be downloaded for free by the members of the forum (and non-members, as well). Similarly, we are always offering source material which can be purchased (independently; i.e. books and magazines) for further interest. Our interest in the fields we ‘specialize’ in is embossed by what we offer in our responses to the criticism threads standard members open to have their work reviewed. In fact, although not something supported by the NS Draftroom (the NS Draftroom is not an organization which makes a design perfect), armaments that have gone through the NS Draftroom normally also come with the idea that they have been peer reviewed and therefore are ‘realistic’ (to the extent which can be true for NationStates).

Some of our ‘expert’ members are known for their fields. For example, Questers and Vault 10 are known for their knowledge in naval technology (the latter works in the industry, as well). Or, Nianacio, The Macabees and Sumer for their knowledge on mechanization (the first should work in the industry) and, in specific, tank technology. To underscore the wealth of knowledge held by some of the Draftroom’s members, you can visit the ‘NS Informatives’. These are ‘peer reviewed’ (by the Draftroom’s members) papers written by the members of the forum. The idea is new and to date only three papers have been written (all on tank technology), but the section is steadily growing (with many new essays to come). An important fact to consider is that these papers are completely sourced, and the facts can be counterchecked by those interested in doing so. Some of the members also write for other journals, websites and magazines – for example, The Macabees is the principle authors of several Wikipedia articles (T-26 [featured], Ch’onma-ho [did you know?], Panzer I [GA], Electrothermal-chemical Technology [GA], Second Battle of Kharkov [A-Class], amongst others), has written for ARMOR magazine (on the Spanish Leopard 2E) and has written articles for the All Empire magazine (First Punic War, Battle of Kadesh, Spain’s Panzer IV Ausf H, Amphibious Assault at Alhucemas, and others). Although not yet many, some of our members are in the military, or have been, and therefore have that experience (Lyras [Australian Army], Vault 10 [Navy], et cetera). So, the NS Draftroom certainly has a good amount of knowledgeable members.

Consequently, if you are interested in military technology I welcome you to join the NS Draftroom. It’s not only a place where you can get your design peer reviewed, but you can also discuss contemporary military events, real-life defense industry news, NationStates defense industry news, and you can help peer review the designs of others. For those looking for a place to get their weapons peer reviewed, most of the criticism given by the board’s members is polite and informative – some disputes aside, of course. In general, information given is in depth and provides more than what is necessary; meaning your base of knowledge will inevitably grow substantially. It allows ‘new members’ to go from the beginning phase of write-ups, to a much more advanced phase. For example, some of our write-ups are up to 36,000 words long (the Lince write-up, in particular, is composed of about 35,653 words)! Therefore, it can also be considered that your writing ability will probably progress for the better (even if the style of writing in the NS Draftroom is not the same style used to write literature, or write a roleplay on NationStates; technical versus imaginative). Just as important, you will probably make ‘friends’ (or roleplaying partners) by actively partaking in the discussions on the NS Draftroom, and therefore it’s a way to interact with people you wouldn’t interact with anyways.

The other day I was searching for the NS Draftroom on Google (couldn’t access the site via the hyperlink) and I was amazed to find out that the website had been suggested on a totally unrelated message board, to review some weapon designs. The information provided on the forum must make enough of an impact as to give a person a reason to suggest it to somebody not related to NationStates. Of course, it’s just one message board of out many, but the NS Draftroom has only been in existence since about May 2007 (the NS Draftroom existed prior to that in another forum, which will come up if you search on Google, run by Sarzonia; that forum is no longer in use, as the administration changed). Admittedly, the NS Draftroom has a long way to go still – only three Informatives is a testament to this – but it has progressed beyond the expectations of many members, and new ideas are always being introduced to make the forums far more dynamic (for example, there might be a series of interviews – like on the old Draftroom – between The Macabees and designers, which will focus on how they design and why; the idea is Sarzonia’s, and it’s a good idea).

So, I invite you to join the NS Draftroom:

z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom

Here is a direct link to the index thread for the NS Draftroom Informatives:

Index (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1515)

Almost 30,000 posts to date and almost 250 members is a testament to what the NS Draftroom can offer you.

(y)

Join and be enlightened.

Excellent Idea, all though i don't plan to join

Excellent Idea, all though i don't plan to join

Why not? :(

tl;dr

I read most of the first section, and the last section, so I figure I got the idea. I'll read the whole thing later, but it seems like an excellent idea.

I'll happily join.

Excellent Idea, all though i don't plan to join

There's always other options if you don't want to design your own weapon systems or structure:

1) Use a RL military technology*
2) Buy MilTech from other NationStates
3) CTRL+C CTRL+V an existing RL tech and rename it**
4) CTRL+C CTRL+V military organization of a RL nation.
5) CTRL+C CTRL+V anything else from RL.

*Just it's preferable to try to make a sense from it. If your nation is Russia-based, you know which RL weapons to employ(AK-107s and the like). Always try to have a reasoning behind it, you won't want to have carriers in an enclave(nation without territorial waters), for example.
**But mention it explicitly that it's just a rename of a RL tech if you do so

I find the NSDraftroom a very informative board, and have myself posted multiple designs on there for critical and informative review (NOTE: I know I have put some joke designs up, and I know many people don't have a sense of humour, but if you look you should find some half-decent designs).

I would recommend it to anyone interested in design or in military matters generally.

There's always other options if you don't want to design your own weapon systems or structure:

1) Use a RL military technology*
2) Buy MilTech from other NationStates
3) CTRL+C CTRL+V an existing RL tech and rename it**
4) CTRL+C CTRL+V military organization of a RL nation.
5) CTRL+C CTRL+V anything else from RL.

*Just it's preferable to try to make a sense from it. If your nation is Russia-based, you know which RL weapons to employ(AK-107s and the like). Always try to have a reasoning behind it, you won't want to have carriers in an enclave(nation without territorial waters), for example.
**But mention it explicitly that it's just a rename of a RL tech if you do so

About the bolded part: When you do so please purchase from a nation that does post their designs on the Draftroom. These storefronts can be found here: http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1772

Designs not posted there, although at times appealing, can be wanktastic and not close to possible. Also, if you do use those designs, you can be ignored by people who don't want to deal with techwank.

Bump!

Back up!

I'll join. I try to RP as realistic as possible so I use Soviet Modern Tech in my nation (ex-soviet state...go figure), so I don't use designs right now that are surrealistic, however I will be using some later as I will move my nation from MT to PMT and possibly FT over the course of the next few RL years.

I will be designing a few f-22/typhoon/su-42 type aircraft for Karshkovia but mainly my idea is for Karshkovia to head into space with a space station, moon landing (possible base) and mars missions, so my spacecraft designs will need to be reviewed.

Good!

Karshkovia, you might want to talk to Jeuna / Adygea, Macabees, Questers, or Soviet Bloc. All of them have extensive experience with Soviet tech. Adygea is an ex-Soviet state as well, so you might get some good tips.

Also, this is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in being realistic on NationStates.

Bump. I hate this server, sometimes I can't reach the Draftroom.

Bump

Back up.

lul wut?

Bump

We only need twenty-three more members to reach 300. :p

I joined to get help with the HAT-1.

Yay!

lololol bump

More people should join. :)

The NS Draftroom has officially also taken over the International Mall. We now have a large amount of storefronts (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?c=7) in the same place! Potential clients should register.

Bump

301 members!

Bit of a point of contention though - how do you gauge FT and PMT stuff?

To illustrate my point, I'm going to go for kind of a stretch here and talk about pretty much any sci-fi written by Isaac Asimov. If you'll notice, all the computers and robots he uses are all made of vacuum tubes, and nuclear power is considered quintessential high tech, both of these technologies being employed on star cruisers and the latter even having a religion formed around it. Most of his stuff was written fifty years in the past, or even more recently than that.

Fifty years in the future, who are we to say what technological leaps and bounds are possible? Granted, we are looking at things like silksteel, further miniaturization, and more efficient power sources on the horizon, but what about the unforeseeable, revolutionary things? If you presented the concept of the microchip to most people in Asimov's era, told them that it would replace the vacuum tube and that everyone would have a computer in their home, they'd call it techwank. Not in those exact terms, obviously, but I'm sure you all get my point.

If you haven't guessed yet, my point is this: what if we have something that looks completely impossible now, but has a solid chunk of RPing put into the research and is not completely unbalanced, yet is so far-fetched and revolutionary that it looks impossible by modern-day standards? Would you just ignore that straight up? How would you even judge it?

Thank yew, and goodnight.

Since I didn't think people would respond in this thread, I reposted your post here: http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3005

We are officially one year old!

Bump.

Bump!

Bump

I still remember one of my first, LULZy tank ideas of a MT Jagdpanther tank destroyer for ambushes with its main fail 105mm gun mounted rearwards and biodiesel-electric propulsion because it's "more environmentally friendly". Plus I was using a GAVINTOPIA (www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm) site as reference claiming wheels were useless compared to treads.

Instead I just strapped a tank turret with a moving mantlet for a L44 120mm ETC smoothbore, made a tank for only Asian crew because of its crew compartment low height and covered it with IR reducing netting and some "stealth" doodads.

By Undoing My Phail designs, I have managed to have some slight win.

Bump

lol wut?

[New Informative: http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3003&st=0&#last]


Disembark, whatever it costs: Spain’s amphibious assault at Alhucemas, 1925

¨Alhucemas is the heart of the anti-Spanish rebellion. It is the road to Fez. It is the quick route to the Mediterranean, and it is the key to much propaganda which shall end on the day that we set foot on that coast.¨1

Although Spain began to occupy strategic parts of the Moroccan coastline in the mid-15th and 16th centuries, her interest for colonizing the area across the Straits of Gibraltar perhaps did not completely start until the Spanish-American war of 1898. The loss of what remained of her empire to the United States, preceded by years of revolution in Cuba, left the kingdom penniless. More importantly, it underscored Spain’s status as a second rate European nation – no longer in the same class as nations Spain once humbled, such as France or Italy. The yearning for a return to the Golden Age of Spanish history, when the Spanish Empire spanned four continents, may have driven Spanish colonialism in Morocco in the early 20th century. Certainly, the effects of Spain’s defeat in 1898 can be seen elsewhere – in 1903 the Spanish Armada saw a proposal for eight brand-new dreadnoughts declined by the Spanish government.2 It should be noted that it was only five years earlier when the entirety of the Spanish Pacific naval squadron was destroyed, and portions of the Spanish fleet operating around Cuba. The economic recovery in the first decade of the 20th century may also have factored into Spain’s renewed interests to maintain colonies, and is certainly what funded Spanish military operations in Morocco.

In 1899 an article in the Spanish newspaper Epoca said, ¨It is necessary to insist upon the fact that there is an immense difference between our colonies in Oceania and our possessions in Africa. If, in the case of the former, our mission may be considered as ended with the loss of the Philippines, the mission of Spain in Africa is not ended and cannot be ended, although our present weakness makes it necessary for us to pause to reorganize and concentrate our strength.¨3 Although Spain’s actions in Morocco were limited due to fear of an English or French response in the form of belligerence, in 1904 Spain and France finally came to an understanding about territorial rights in Morocco – Spain was near guaranteed hegemony over Northern Morocco, and the drive to occupy this territory and to prevent French occupation of what had been ‘promised’ to Spain is what directed the majority of Spanish operations in the region. In the end, Spain could consider herself lucky that at the time there was plenty of competition between the English and the French, and the English were far more interested in having a second rate power control the opposite side of the Straits of the Gibraltar than France.4

Regardless of the causes for Spain’s interventions in Morocco after 1900, her military operations in the country were to lead to, perhaps, the most important war in Spain’s modern history. Spanish militarism south of the Gibraltar between 1900 and 1912 was also to shape the Spanish Army and prepare it for what was to come in 1921. In order to understand the events which unveiled themselves between 1921 and 1927, there must be a brief narrative on Spanish-Moroccan relations between 1890 and 1919.

Spain in Morocco: 1890-1919
The death of Moroccan sultan Muley el Hassan on 18 June 1894 and the proclamation of his brother, Abd-el-Aziz, as successor sparked renewed vigor in tribal rebellions and a number of attempts to take the throne by a myriad of pretenders. In 1902 a pretended to the crown known as El Roghi, or ‘the pretender’, managed to set up a rebellion near the Spanish city of Melilla. The Sultan’s attempts to defeat El Roghi’s rebellions were met with defeat, and El Roghi managed to persuade a number of local tribes to join his cause. Between 1902 and 1903, amidst conflicts between El Roghi and local leaders loyal to Abd-el-Aziz and royal troops a number of Moroccan leaders and troops took refuge in a small fort town called Farjana. After the sack of Farjana, Spanish Melilla became a refuge for many loyal to the sultan and the use of Spanish territory put Spain directly between the sultan and El Roghi. Nevertheless, El Roghi continued to press against areas still loyal to the sultan well into 1905.5

In late 1905 the French set up a trading post at a small coastal village called Restinga, with aims to supply El Roghi with armaments.6 Besides the production and supply of arms, French occupants also began to force merchant caravans to trade directly with the French trading post, and not with Spain at Melilla.7 The French establishment threatened not only Spanish influence over the area, but Melilla’s status as a local market, and in 1907 royal Moroccan troops occupied the area and forced the French trading post to disband at the insistence of Spanish officials. Although the sultan’s force was defeated in early 1908 and the region reoccupied by El Roghi, Spanish troops quickly moved into the zone to prevent the reestablishment of the French trading post. A short time later, Spanish troops also successfully occupied the coastal town of Cabo Agua, under the justification that they had been invited by the local population to defend them against El Roghi.8

Spain’s direct interventions in the conflict between El Roghi and Abd-el-Aziz were preceded by the sack of a Spanish merchant ship near Restinga by El Roghi’s forces. Furthermore, the French Navy directly intervened between a royal gun boat and El Roghi, forcing the sultan’s ship to retire from the coastal bombardment, in February 1906.9 The introduction of the French Navy in the conflict, especially in an area which was considered under the influence of Spain, and of a trading post threatened Spain’s future control over Northern Morocco. One can assume that the majority of Spain’s actions were preemptions of French machinations in Northern Morocco. Certainly, the establishment of the trading post at Restinga was a threat to the commercial supremacy of Melilla in the north. In fact, after 1907 Spanish military advances in Northern Morocco were driven by the fear of French encroachment in what was considered Spanish territory by right. However, the increase of Spain’s military presence in Riffian territory ultimately sparked conflict between the Rif and Melilla – so much that, in 1910 Melilla was occupied by no less than 50,000 Spanish soldiers.10

The Riffian military importance in northern Morocco also grew with their defeat of El Roghi by 1908. The Riffian tribes which had taken part in the defeat of El Roghi’s forces allowed the sultan to take the pretender prisoner, concluding in his torture and his execution.11 El Roghi had previously leased a number of mines to the French and these were effectively shut down by the Riffian occupiers. France threatened to intervene, and hoping to prevent the introduction of French troops in the area Spain attempted to reopen the mines and construct a railway between the mines and Melilla. Riffian attacks on Spanish workers led to open conflict between Spain and the Rif, ending in minor Spanish conquests and some 2,300 casualties.12 Despite the Spanish victory, and increased international prestige, the conflict proved that Spain’s occupation of that area of Morocco would not be easy and would foreshadow difficulties in fighting the Rif’s tribes in the near future. In 1910, Morocco and Spain signed a convention in Madrid which virtually gave Spain uncontested rights to operate in northern Morocco. The convention also forced Morocco to pay Spain the costs of the war, and allowed Spain to set up a police force, made up of local Moroccan tribesmen – although led by Spanish officers – at the expense of the Spanish promise to withdraw troops from Moroccan territory when these police units were ready to take over.13

Relative peace ensued between June 1910 and August 1911. However, in August 1911 Berber tribes led by El Mizzian and Spanish troops engaged in a number of engagements which would be known as the Kert War. The war ended in May 1912, with the death of El Mizzian in a skirmish, with only modest gains up to the River Kert made by Spain. Simultaneously, violence in Fez allowed the French to justify direct intervention and French troops began to operate as north as the Alcazarquivir region – considered Spanish. On 8 June 1911 Spanish troops occupied Alcazarquivir peacefully, leading to an official French protest. Nevertheless, the French were forced to withdraw complaints in the face of having to focus on other happenings elsewhere in Morocco. France’s and Spain’s issues over Alcazarquivir were finally resolved, to a degree, by the establishment of the French Protectorate in March 1912 and the French agreement to respect the establishment of a Spanish Protectorate in November of that same year.14

Although the establishment of the Spanish Protectorate decreased Spanish fears of French encroachment, it now forced the Spanish to take on a more active role at pacifying and occupying the entirety of the protectorate. The failure to do so could result in an embarrassing reflection of Spain’s military capabilities. Nevertheless, the difficulties in humbling the Rif tribes between 1908 and 1910, and then again during the Kert War, did not lend themselves towards persuading the Spanish parliament to sanction further campaigns in Morocco. Instead, Spain continued her slow occupation of Morocco through ‘passive penetration’ – occupying territories only after these had been surrendered to Spanish authority through a political agreement. In 1913 Tetuán was occupied by Spanish forces, and declared capital of the protectorate. Unfortunately, the peaceful occupation of sectors of Morocco failed when Commander Fernández Silvestre provoked outright conflict with a western Morocco strongman, el Raisuli. This, together with the abuse of the Moroccan population in Tetuán by Spanish soldiers, prompted the beginning of a violent conflict around Tetuán and the region of Larache, which Spain had occupied to preempt the reconstruction of the French trading post at Restinga. Despite the outbreak of conflict in 1913, the years of the First World War proved to be some of the most peaceful since the beginning of Spanish operations in Morocco.15

In December 1918 the parliamentary government of Spain decided to renew attempts at the occupation of the Spanish Protectorate through a gradual military advance. Between 1915 and 1918 El Raisuli took advantage of the uneasy peace between him and Spanish troops in the area to undermine Spanish influence in the western zone of the protectorate. Furthermore, during the First World War German agents had persuaded El Raisuli to reorient efforts to raid the French Protectorate, and the end of the war now mean that El Raisuli had a large stock of German surplus armament ready to engage Spanish assets. General Damaso Berenguer, previously Minister of War, was assigned to overview operations in Morocco in 1919.16 30 January 1919, thanks to Berenguer, General Manuel Fernández Silvestre was named General Commander of Melilla and ordered to begin a series of advances out of Melilla, with the ultimate goal of capturing the Riffian capital of Ajdir.17

In order to promote the occupation of the Spanish Protectorate, and at the same time appease workers at home who were in no condition to be pressed into service, the Spanish Ministry of War founded the Spanish Foreign Legion in early 1920. The legion was put under the command and guidance of Lieutenant Colonel Millán Astray, who chose as his second in command Major Francisco Franco. Both of these men were notable officers in the Regulares – Spanish army units composed of native enlisted soldiers –, and both recognized the need for a body of men dedicated to victory in Morocco. Within days of the opening of the first recruitment posts in Barcelona, Madrid and Valencia, over 400 Spaniards joined the legion led by the hopes of food and steady pay. The legion offered adventure and a chance for glory, and from the very beginning was seen as an elite unit. Recruits were organized into banderas, a little less than battalion size, with two rifle companies, one machine gun company, a sapper platoon and a transport and supply unit. During training, the legion promoted unity and patriotism towards Spain and the effects were seen immediately.

Although the Spanish ‘Foreign’ Legion was predominately Spanish in nature, a number of foreign volunteers did eventually arrive. Germans, North Americans, South American revolutionaries, Poles and Maltese joined the legion’s cause mostly to escape the depression of the interwar. The legion required no paperwork for recruitment and rumors persist that if a convict reached the legion before he was caught was accepted for service. Nevertheless, only 20% of the legion was composed of foreign fighters and none became officers until the advent of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Millán Astray created an aura of heroism, conservatism and medieval knighthood – the legion was a unit in which a broken man could regenerate himself through glory in war. A striking difference between the French Foreign Legion, in which the Spanish Legion was modeled upon, was the deep nationalism towards Spain embedded in her soldiers. Furthermore, Catholic fervor was commonplace in the legion, although Protestants were allowed to attend drill practice instead of mass on Sundays. Overall, the legion forged a vision in which death on the battlefield was the ultimate glory for a legionnaire. It’s no wonder that the most attributed motto to the legion was, ¨long live death¨. One author wrote, ¨In the French Legion, death in battle was a virtue; in the Spanish Legion it was an obsession.¨ These attributes characterized the legion during the war in Morocco between 1921 and 1927, including during the landing at Alhucemas.18

In view of this renewed vigor to outright pacify the Spanish Protectorate through belligerent military occupation, in May 1919 General Silvestre began his westward offensive towards Ajdir, near the Bay of Alhucemas. On 30 May, Silvestre crossed the River Kert and by 1921 the Spanish Army had occupied a number of positions around Annual. The military successes between 1919 and 1921 worked to bring Spain much glory and international prestige, but General Silvestre’s advance continued in such a way that the more he occupied the longer his lines of communication and supply became. In mid-1921, after some minor successes west of Annual, the logistical situation of General Silvestre’s army became dire. Nevertheless, General Silvestre remained undaunted in his task to reach Ajdir. And in this situation the Spanish Army found itself in the first battle of the so-called Rif War.

The first period of the Rif War: 1921-1924
What united the Rif’s tribes in an effort to dispel Spanish forces from the region is a topic of controversy. Many hold that the rebellion in the Spanish Protectorate was founded upon religious principles, and may be one of the first major Muslim nationalist movements in North Africa of the 20th century. In an interview with the Egyptian newspaper Al-Manar, Abd-el-Krim (leader of the Rif resistance during the war) declared that his intentions were to create a Moroccan Republic ¨with a resolute government, firm sovereignty and a strong national organization¨. He declared these principles as key in the unification of the Riffian tribes, who were traditionally independent, and assuming a Riffian victory the Moroccan leader said that his intentions were to keep the Riffian peoples united under an Islamic banner. Certainly, the evolution from harkas – war parties – to a standing army during the early years of the Rif War seems to underscore Abd-el-Krim’s attempts to unite the Rif.19 Whether Abd-el-krim aimed to create a Moroccan state through religion or politics is beyond the scope of this article, but the important fact remains that Spain was fighting a unified from for the first time in its attempts to pacify the Rif Mountains of Northern Morocco. Perhaps one of the most important factors in Abd-el-Krim’s unification of the Riffian tribesmen was his overwhelming victory at Annual.

Annual turned into one of the main outposts of General Silvestre’s advance westwards by May 1925, despite its situation in a non-strategic portion of terrain. It represented the envelope of Spain’s operations and perhaps served as a forward base for the occupation of Abarrán. General Silvestre looked at Abarrán as a correction of his poor judgment in the occupation of Annual and surrounding outposts and hoped to reestablish a firm line of communications with Melilla. Despite these ambitions, a number of officers hoped to dissuade General Silvestre and General Berenguer from this goal as they saw the consolidation of existing gains as the more pertinent goal. Nevertheless, the operation to take Abarrán commenced on 1 June 1921. A distance of less than nine kilometers turned into seventeen given the rough terrain of that area of Morocco, but by the end of the day the first palisades constructed at Abarrán by Spanish forces – mostly native, led by Spanish officers – could be seen from Annual. The majority of the forces who had marched to Abarrán returned to Annual, leaving only two companies of native troops and a battery of light mountain artillery. The operation was concluded as a success and General Silvestre hurried to telegram the news to General Berenguer.

However, troops at Abarrán contact with Annual to declare the existence of a Riffian war party surrounding the newly constructed outpost. Almost immediately the first shots are heard, and although the returning column of troops hear the beginning of the violence the column continued its return to Annual. In vain, the artillery guns stationed at the outpost of Igueriben shot blindly at positions near Abarrán. Abarrán fell almost as soon as it was built and it would mark the first defeat in a series of reverses which formed the disaster at Annual.20 In response of the tragic events at Abarrán, General Silvestre decided to augment the protection of Annual by sending detachments to forward positions such as Igueriben. All the while, Abd-el-krim consolidated his position and united a greater war party for the inevitable counterstroke at Annual. By 12 July the positions of the Moroccan natives forming part of the war party dedicated to the taking of Annual could be seen in positions only a kilometer and a half away from Igueriben. After a ferocious siege, Igueriben fell on 21 July, leaving the road to Annual open.21

The next day it was obvious that the Riffian war party was aiming to take Annual, and a withdrawal from the position was ordered soon thereafter. The native troops were ordered to deploy towards the enemy to make time for the main force to retreat eastwards. To the distress of the commanding officers of the Annual contingent, large portions of the native police, defending the left flank of the native force sent as a rear detachment, defected to Abd-el-Krim’s cause and put all the men trying to escape from Annual in a perilous position. Amidst confusion, the withdrawal turned into a retreat and then into a chaotic rout. Lack of cohesion and leadership provided enough of a disadvantage within the Spanish ranks to allow the Riffian warriors to slaughter a large percentage of General Silvestre’s army.22 In a space of a few days, an estimated twelve thousand men and General Silvestre23 were killed and an army of twenty thousand rendered ineffective.24 Annual was to be known as ¨the greatest defeat suffered by a European colonial power in an African colonial conflict in the 20th century¨.25 In a matter of days Spain had lost the majority of the territory she had occupied in Morocco since 1908, a large portion of her armed forces, and the protection of Melilla. Furthermore, with the victory at Annual Abd-el-Krim was able to persuade a larger portion of the Riffian tribes to join his cause and he successfully pressed into service a large number of modern weapons captured at the various different outposts around Annual.

With the danger of Melilla falling to Abd-el-krim, the Spanish Legion was rushed from Tetuán to Melilla in order to break the siege. The campaign to recapture lost territory in July 1921 fell upon the shoulders of the legion and the Regulares, and this can be witnessed in the casualty rate which befell the men of the legion – 45% amongst officers and 38% among enlisted men.26 The alarm of Spain’s disaster was shared with the French. On 18 December 1921, France transferred to Spain eleven Renault FT-17 light tanks, six Schneider CA1 tanks armed with a relatively heavy 75mm howitzer and other crucial war material. This order had previously been denied to Spain, but even Paris respected the urgency of the situation after the fall of Annual.27 The legion, Regulares and newly arrived armor managed to restore Spanish territory up to the River Kert by early 1922,28 but failed to achieve a decisive victory over Abd-el-krim. Furthermore, the support base of the latter was still growing.

The parliamentary government’s inability to solve growing problems at home relevant to welfare, industrialization and agriculture, as well as the Morocco issue, propelled General Miguel Primo de Rivera to power in a bloodless coup on 13 September 1923. Although Primo de Rivera had twice suggested the complete abandonment of the province prior to his coming to power, his reliance on the africanistas – or officers who fought in Morocco and were in favor of the pacification of the protectorate – as his power base forced him to look for a different solution. In October 1923, Primo de Rivera failed to come to an agreement with Abd-el-krim over the establishment of a peace treaty and instead he adopted a policy of ‘semi-abandonment’. In May of the next year, the Spanish dictator ordered the transfer of the majority of Spain’s air power in Africa to Melilla and began preparations to withdraw Spanish forces to areas easier to defend. Starting in October 1924, some 30,000 troops moved to a new fortified position south of Tetuán. Consequently, the majority of the Western Zone of the protectorate was abandoned in favor of consolidating military power along a shorter and more easily defended front, while troops in the Eastern Zone continued their operations against Riffian forces. Although this new policy received heated critiques from the africanistas, the semi-abandonment of the Ceuta and Tetuán region may have saved Spain from a second Annual.29

Although Primo de Rivera was always considered a promoter of the abandonment of the Spanish Protectorate and he publicly declared a lack of interest in renewing offensive operations against the Rif, he began the planning of an amphibious operation at Alhucemas Bay. It was concluded that the quickest way to end the war was to take the Riffian capital of Ajdir, and that meant a landing at Alhucemas. Although planning for an amphibious operation at Alhucemas began in 1924, the Riffian invasion of the French Protectorate in April 1925 provided a new dimension to the war which tilted the outcome of the war in Spain’s favor. Abd-el-krim provoked a Franco-Spanish decision to mutually end the Rif War and to complete the pacification of the Spanish Protectorate. Although the idea of landing at Alhucemas was not new, as the Spanish military had suggested it both in 1909 and in 1922, it became inevitable in 1925.

Preparations for the Alhucemas operation

Preparation of the invasion plans fell to General Ignacio Despujols and a team of experienced staff members of the Army of Africa. The planning team looked upon the lessons learned at Gallipoli, in 1915, to find success at Alhucemas. Gallipoli showed that a landing preceded by poor naval support, preparations and training could not be victorious. Furthermore, at Gallipoli ground units found little incentive to push against Ottoman beach defenses and officers proved to lack enthusiasm to force an advance. The British attempt to take the Dardanelles could also place the fault of the failure on the distance between beaches, which made mutual support difficult, and the inability to overwhelm Ottoman beach defenses through air or naval power. All of these aspects were taken into consideration by the staff which planned the Alhucemas operation and by those who trained the forces for the future landing.

Spanish forces destined to take part were split between two major columns, based on their geographic position. In other words, troops originating from the Western Zone of the protectorate were organized under the Western Zone Column and likewise for those from the Eastern Zone of the protectorate. All in all, between 18,000 and 20,000 men were earmarked for the operation and 18% of these were formed by four banderas of the Spanish Legion.30 From the west, those who were to take part included: a tank company of twelve FT-17 light tanks, seven tabores – units made up exclusively by native Moroccans –, two legionary banderas, three infantry battalions, three artillery batteries and accompanying logistics and engineers. The force originating from the east was of similar composition, save for the tank company. At the time, the majority of the work of carrying material related to logistics was undertaken by mules. The state of mechanization in Spain was almost non-existent prior to the Spanish Civil War.


Also earmarked to partake in the operation was a battalion of Spanish marines, from the Tercio de la Armada (TEAR). These possibly belonged to the either of the two Spanish battleships deployed for naval gun support and to accompanying escorts. Although it’s known that forces belonging to ship based amphibious assault marines took part at Alhucemas, not many details have been published. Sections of marines on Spanish ships were called trozos, while larger columns (normally belonging to capital ships, such as battleships) were called columnas. A battleship’s columna could include up to 231 men, and these could count on six 76.2mm howitzers. Each soldier was armed with a 7mm Spanish Mauser, which was standard in the Spanish Armada at the time. Normally, a ship’s trozo hit the beach on auxiliary boats carried by the ship. Whether these were used at Alhucemas remains unclear, as although the gunboat Álvaro de Bazán is known to have used their trozo at Casablanca in 1907, Spain did not have landing craft available until 1922.31

Apart from the battleships Jaime I and Alfonso XIII, also destined to aid in the landings were the seaplane tender Dédalo, five cruisers, three destroyers and a large number of gun boats. The French sent the battleship Paris, two cruisers and four other smaller ships to rendezvous with the Spanish squadron at Alhucemas Bay. Furthermore, each invasion column would come with a small naval attachment of their own, mostly for transport purposes.32 A number of the present ships tugged twenty-six K type barges purchased from the British with the utmost secrecy in 1922. These are the same type of landing craft looked at Gallipoli, and some sources indicate that the barges sold to Spain were survivors of the 1915 amphibious attack on the Dardanelles.33 This naval reunion was of significance for a Spain which has lost much of her navy during the Spanish-American War of 1898, and was reduced to operating on terrain across the Straits of Gibraltar. In regards to battleships, it represented Spain’s entire capital ship fleet – the third España class battleship, the España proper, was lost in 1923 when it ran aground due to thick fog. The reunion of such a large naval force, at least relative to the size of the Spanish Navy at the time, underscores the importance of success at Alhucemas Bay.

Alhucemas was not to go into history without precedents, however. Originally, 25 January 1925 was to see an amphibious landing on the beaches of the Anjera region of western Morocco. The Anjera tribe were positioned behind the defensive line south of Tetuán which had been established in 1924, and Primo de River was looking to secure the rear of his forces. Franco was chosen to lead a band of legionnaires ashore, but bad weather forced Primo de Rivera to postpone the invasion until 29 March. This time, overall command was put under General Federico de Sousa Regoyos and a tabor of Regulares, as well as the IV and VI banderas of the Spanish Legion would partake in the operation. The Regulares were commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Álvarez Arenas, and the two banderas of the legion were put under the command of Colonel Franco. The Spanish Navy and Air Force spent 29 March strafing and bombarding the landing site, and the following day the landing forces began operating at 0100 hours. The two banderas formed the vanguard of the landing, hitting the beach aboard six K type barges and overwhelming the defenders. The operation was declared a total success and the Anjera tribe was forced out of the war.34

Apart from the Anjera landing, other troops prepared for the invasion by conducting mock amphibious landings on the beaches of Ceuta and Melilla, using K type barges. For Spanish troops, the key to success fell on the ability to remain composed once they hit the beach. Furthermore, both Gallipoli and Anjera had proven that success lay on the velocity of the initial landing and the ability of the soldiers to overwhelm the defenders. Given the required ferocity of the initial attack, clearly the four banderas of the legion would lead the landings at Alhucemas. Ultimately, it was decided to land outside the bay, near the peninsula which marked the beginning of the Western lip of the bay. The beaches would be consolidated into two nearby landing sites – La Cebadilla and Ixdain. The initial assault was to be reinforced by the twelve FT-17 light tanks, landing in three reinforced Type K barges.35 Primo de Rivera finally scheduled the landings to take place on 7 September, 1925.

Moroccan defenses

The defenders of Alhucemas Bay contrasted sharply from the original harkas which raided Annual in mid-1921. Abd-el-krim successfully turned a band of warriors into a regular army with monthly pay, uniforms and a unified chain of command. Furthermore, weapons captured in 1921 and weapons provided to Abd-el-krim from the international city of Tangiers and French territory – Algeria and the French Protectorate – gave the reformed Riffian Army modern armaments on the same level of those of Spain. This includes Spanish rifles and artillery guns. However, throughout the war the size of the regular army was too small to depend on itself to fight the Spaniards, and therefore Abd-el-krim still relied heavily on the availability of harkas.36 A great multitude of the men who made up the defending army at Alhucemas had earlier formed part of Spanish units of native police, Regulares or harkas, and these were trained and led by very capable officers. Nonetheless, these formed just a nucleus and a larger portion of the defending forces were still composed of recruited harkas. Apart from men, Abd-el-krim could count on no less than ten batteries, including four 105mm batteries. His ranks also included European mercenaries, and some defectors from the Spanish and French armies.37 In total, the Riffian defenses counted on some eight thousand men to defend the entirety of the Alhucemas Bay. The majority of these were positioned to defend the beaches inside the bay, not outside. Where the landings would take place, there was a one thousand man garrison, a number of machine gun nests and three artillery batteries.

As it became obvious that Spain was to attempt a landing somewhere at Alhucemas in September, Abd-el-krim attempted to force the postponement of the suspected invasion by launching an offensive towards Tetuán. According to author de la Cierva, Abd-el-krim promised that ¨if they disembark at Alhucemas, I will take Tetuán.¨ More than an honest attempt to capture the Spanish capital of their protectorate, the operation was a diversion. Abd-el-krim hoped that his offensive towards Tetuán would force the Spaniards to keep forces earmarked for the amphibious operation in the Western Zone to halt his offensive. All the while, the autumn and winter weather would postpone any attempt to land at Alhucemas at a later date. In order to gather enough men for the Tetuán operation, Abd-el-krim redeployed a large number of men which could have instead been used to increase defenses at Alhucemas.38

A serious hamper on Abd-el-krim’s ability to orient the majority of his manpower towards the defeat of the Spanish invasion force at Alhucemas, and at the same time undertake operations near Tetuán, was the French invasion of Riffian territory which began almost simultaneously with the preparations for Alhucemas. Abd-el-krim suddenly found himself fighting on no less than three fronts – Tetuán, Melilla and the south – and Alhucemas was to become the fourth. Given the size of the regular army available to him, well trained forces were not a commodity in the sense that they could serve against all enemies. It’s very likely that the majority of the fighting on all fronts fell to the tribal harkas. Therefore, it is clear that although Abd-el-krim conducted a masterful use of the resources offered to him, he simply did not have enough assets to fight both against the Spanish and against the French. Furthermore, as the progress at Alhucemas would show, he was fatally incorrect to assume that the Spanish would land inside the bay.

Alhucemas39

The large Franco-Spanish fleet consolidated outside of the Bay of Alhucemas by late 6 September, but bad weather did not allow for the planned landing the next day. Consequently, the operation was postponed until 8 September. The landings were put under the overall command of General José Sanjurjo Sacanell, the lion of the Rif. On 6 September, two legionary banderas made a number of landings at Uad Lau, Kaaseras and Targa to obfuscate Rif attempts to guess where the Spaniards planned to land. These landings were preceded by ample coastal bombardment from naval vessels available in the Bay of Alhucemas, and were completed between 0830 and 1600 hours. The landings succeeded in confusing the defenses of Alhucemas Bay, as no reinforcements were sent to the defensive sites which would be the goal of the actual amphibious invasion. Furthermore, Riffian defenses remained concentrated inside the bay – the three landings may have reinforced Abd-el-krim’s opinion that the Spanish landing would occur in the bay, not outside the lip. It is also possible that the three landings may have given Sanjurjo invaluable information on the state of the bay’s defenses. It is true that Sanjurjo had spent much time reconnoitering the beaches of the planned landing site many days prior to the arrival of the Franco-Spanish fleet.

Regardless, on 8 September Primo de Rivera ordered the invasion to commence, despite the continuation of fairly bad weather and thick fog. At 0600 hours the Spanish fleet, and complementary French ships, began the systematic bombardment of the invasion beaches, as well as Moroccan defensive positions to the rear. Spotting was made available through a French artillery barrage dirigible, which formed part of the small fleet sent to aid the Spanish endeavor. Two hours later seventy-five Spanish aircraft joined the effort to soften the defenses by strafing and bombing both La Cebadilla and Ixdain. At 0900, the order was given for the ground troops to board their K type barges and these were tugged towards shore. At some point during the transport of Franco’s VI bandera the tug boats were ordered to orient the barges towards Ixdain beach due to the threat of unexploded ordnance at La Cebadilla. One thousand meters from shore the K type barges were let loose and these proceeded under their own propulsion.

Soon thereafter the invasion struck an obstacle, literally. The K type barges hit a shoal, forcing the transports carrying Franco’s armor to turn back. Although Primo de Rivera ordered a halt to operations, Franco ordered his men forward and into the water. The legionnaires of the VI bandera and two native harkas waded through neck deep water the last fifty meters distance between then and the shoreline. Unfortunately, the shoals also hampered the arrival of the necessary artillery and logistics and therefore the task of providing fire support to the legionnaires fell entirely upon the Spanish Navy. In that sense, Spanish naval guns preformed an extraordinary task of supporting Franco’s advance on shore with well-coordinated fire.

Upon hitting the beach, the Harkas continue the advance on the right flank, while the legionnaires continue on the left. The determination and sheer velocity of the landing troops overwhelmed the defenders of the surrounding hills, allowing the capture of a number of artillery batteries and prisoners. Nevertheless, Riffian defenders responded violently with their artillery batteries and registered a number of hits on the Spanish battleship Alfonso XIII, which was forced to withdraw to a position out of range of enemy artillery. Regardless, the capture of the heights near the beach ended the fighting for the beach and allowed the landing of the rest of the column coming from Ceuta by the following day. Casualties for the first day of operations amounted only to 124 men, including 7 officers. The ships carrying the column precedent from Melilla couldn’t disembark until 11 September due to bad weather and the return of the French fleet to Oran. Despite some setbacks, at 1300 hours on 8 September General Felipe Navarro declared by radio, ¨We have landed!¨

The battle wasn’t won yet, however. In the face of troubles providing the landed men logistic support due to the shoals, rocks and bad weather, the Riffian defenders consolidated after their earlier defeat and launched a counterattack to dislodge the Spanish from the beach. The violent counterattack was blocked thanks to the defensive fortifications built by the legion, on the beach, and to supporting naval gun fire. The precision of Spanish naval guns made it impossible for the Moroccan defenders to successfully engage Spanish forces on the beach, and is perhaps one of the best examples of Spain’s naval gunnery in the early 20th century. It remains true that the role of the Spanish Navy after 1898 transcended into a period of being a second rate service. Alhucemas proved to be the first major naval operation during the entire Rif War and perhaps the only major naval operation until after the Spanish Civil War. Despite this, their actions at Alhucemas on 8 September deserve more merit than they receive. The Riffian defenders launched a final counterattack on 11 September, but this too failed due to the tenacious defense of the Spanish beachhead. The ferocity of the defense of the beach dissuaded Abd-el-krim’s men from further attempts to retake the beach thereafter.

Dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera landed at La Cebadilla beach on 20 September. With the breakout operation postponed for about two weeks, leaving time to disembark all Spanish forces and enough material to safely continue the offensive southwards, Moroccan artillery and sniper continued to hit Spanish soldiers on the beach and outlying hills. Consequently, the occupation of the higher terrain held by the defenders of Alhucemas Bay became the immediate target of Primo de Rivera’s soldiers. All the while, floating docks, constructed out of wood, had to be set up to allow the administration of food and water to the troops. These floating docks proved to be the primitive cousins of the well known Mulberry docks built for the Normandy operation of the Second World War. Water had to be brought from Melilla, although a series of pipes were constructed to relay water from offshore water tenders to the animals and men onshore – unfortunately, the piping was crudely manufactured and most of the water received onshore was polluted by salt water.

Despite these unforeseen logistics problems, renewed operations were planned for 22 and 23 of September. With winter forthcoming, Primo de Rivera hoped to begin breakout operations as soon as possible – hesitation and stalling proved to be one of the factors which brought failure upon the English at Gallipoli. The most relevant goal was the capture of a line south of the beaches, occupying the high points of the landscape to dictate the fortunes of future operations towards Ajdir. The ultimate target was Mount Malmusi, which was the target of heavy reconnaissance since 9 September. On 22 September, an offensive undertaken by a battalion of Regulares and parts of two battalions of the Army of Africa aimed to occupy a number of heights between them and Mount Malmusi. Heavy resistance slowed operations and ultimately the offensive was not as successful as originally envisioned.

Nevertheless, the following day the II and III banderas, under Colonel Goded, and Colonel Franco’s VI and VII banderas began an offensive of their own, with the goal of occupying Mount Malmusi and finishing the occupation of the peninsula of Morro Nuevo. Goded’s men met far less resistance than Franco’s in their endeavor. The capture of Mount Malmusi, a 500 meter high hill, meant opening the road to Ajdir and therefore, the battle for the hill became one of the most violent and bloody of the entire campaign. It’s said that when Franco’s men reached the top of the hill there was only one defender left alive, and this defender had to be stabbed to death by one of the legionnaires. Compared to the low casualties sustained during the landings, Mount Malmusi was many times as bloody – around 700 Spaniards dead, and an unconfirmed number of Riffian defenders. However, the capture of Mount Malmusi opened the road to Ajdir and by 30 September, after fierce fighting, the Spanish had swept most of the Riffian defenses between them and the Rif capital. Ajdir was captured on 2 October, 1925.

Although the war continued until early 1927, the amphibious assault at Alhucemas was the turning point for Abd-el-krim’s nationalist rebellion in the Spanish Protectorate. With some of his best men defeated at Tetuán and Alhucemas, the Moroccan leader could hardly continue defending against French and Spanish advances into the heartland of the Rif. Abd-el-krim surrendered to the French the next year, although operations would continue in Morocco until 1927. With the defeat of the Rif between 1921 and 1927 Morocco would fall silent until independence in 1954.

Conclusions

¨A true amphibious operation is a planned tactical evolution, with the embarkation, ship-to-shore movement, landing, and subsequent operations ashore all part of a coordinated plan.40¨

According to the definition above, the fighting at Alhucemas fulfills all the prerequisites of a true amphibious operation. The landings at Alhucemas Bay were the culmination of a coordinated plan, devised by Spanish military staff for a year’s worth of time, with an embarkation, ship-to-shore movement, landing and subsequent breakout operations. Arguably, the amphibious operation at Alhucemas is the first successful amphibious landing on a grand scale, and it is the first to use armor. Spain’s success at Alhucemas Bay offered a myriad of lessons which were taken into account during the planning of Operation Overlord, which took off 6 June 1944. The majestic coordination between ground units, naval artillery and ground artillery based at the island of Alhucemas – occupied by Spain since the mid-17th century – guaranteed success. Similar coordination is what has characterized subsequent amphibious operations during the Second World War, and even during the landings at Inchon during the Korean War. The amount of pride exerted by the Spanish Navy, Air Force and Army after Alhucemas is unimaginable; Alhucemas was the only decisive victory of the Army of Africa during the Rif War, and saved Spain’s national image after the disaster of Annual.

Alhucemas proves historic also due to the use of methods to confuse the site of the planned landing. The three superfluous amphibious landings worked to persuade Abd-el-krim to continue orienting the majority of his forces around the inner coastline of the Bay of Alhucemas, instead of redeploying larger bodies of men to the site of the actual landing – outside of the lip of the bay. Furthermore, Abd-el-krim had gambled and lost in his decision to launch an offensive towards Tetuán. Although he promised to capture Tetuán if the Spanish landed at Alhucemas, he never successfully completed his goal. Instead, Spanish forces successfully captured the Riffian capital of Ajdir and sealed the fate of the Rif rebellion.

It’s undisputable that the Spanish soldiers which disembarked at Alhucemas were better trained and better prepared than those who fought in Morocco between 1919 and 1921. The discipline and morale exhibited by the men who disembarked that fateful day was sufficient enough to stave off repeated Moroccan counterattacks, together with the use of precise naval artillery. Perhaps most importantly, Alhucemas highlighted the logistic difficulties of conducting an amphibious operating at a large scale and offered a fortune worth of insights in this respect. Spanish engineering cannot be underestimated, even though the ports built and piping systems constructed were crude and primitive compared to the logistic mechanisms used during Operation Overlord – one must remember that Alhucemas could only count on the example of Gallipoli, and after September 8 the operation was left in the hands of only the Spanish Navy, as the French Navy had left. Another issue which would arise in Normandy was the importance of the officer corps on the beach and the non-commissioned officers. Alhucemas was a success on that day thanks to the independent and audacious orders of Colonel Francisco Franco.

Alhucemas has been masked by the greater events which took place in Spain between 1936 and 1939, and by the Second World War. It should be noted, however, that Alhucemas and the war in Morocco shaped the future leadership of Spain and had undisputed lessons taken into consideration during both future wars. Although not specific to Alhucemas, the Rif War may also be considered one of the first major nationalistic movements on the African Continent – movements which would soon shape modern history.

1. Preston, Paul, Franco: A Biography, Basic Books, 1994, p. 43.
2. For information on the Spanish acquisition of three dreadnoughts and the political implications of the contract signed with Vickers, see: Harrison, R.J., British Armaments and European Industrialization, 1890-1914: The Spanish Case Re-Examined, The Economic History Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, November 1974.
3. Andrews, George Frederick, Spanish Interests in Morocco, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1911, p. 557.
4. Chandler, James A., Spain and her Moroccan Protectorate 1898-1927, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 1975, p. 302.
5. De Mesa, José Luis, Intervenciones Humanitarias Españolas en Marruecos a Comienzos del Siglo XX, SERGA, Nº 28, Marzo/Abril 2004, p. 10.
6. Chandler, James A., Spain and her Moroccan Protectorate 1898-1927, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 1975, p. 304.
7. De Mesa, José Luis, Intervenciones Humanitarias Españolas en Marruecos a Comienzos del Siglo XX, SERGA, Nº 28, Marzo/Abril 2004, p. 10.
8. Chandler, James A., Spain and her Moroccan Protectorate 1898-1927, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 1975, p. 304.
9. De Mesa, José Luis, Intervenciones Humanitarias Españolas en Marruecos a Comienzos del Siglo XX, SERGA, Nº 28, Marzo/Abril 2004, p. 12.
10. Andrews, George Frederick, Spanish Interests in Morocco, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1911, p. 562.
11. De Mesa, José Luis, Intervenciones Humanitarias Españolas en Marruecos a Comienzos del Siglo XX, SERGA, Nº 28, Marzo/Abril 2004, p. 24.
12. Chandler, James A., Spain and her Moroccan Protectorate 1898-1927, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 1975, p. 305.
13. Andrews, George Frederick, Spanish Interests in Morocco, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1911, pp. 564-565.
14. Chandler, James A., Spain and her Moroccan Protectorate 1898-1927, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 1975, pp. 306-307.
15. Ibid., pp.307-310.
16. Ibid., p. 310.
17. Francisco, Luis Miguel, Annual, 1921: Crónica de un desastre, AF Editores, October 2005, pp. 15-17.
18. All information on the Spanish Legion, including the quote, is from Bridegrooms of Death: A Profile Study of the Spanish Foreign Legion by John H. Galey (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 2, April 1969. The Spanish Foreign Legion, today, is simply the Spanish Legion and is composed almost entirely of Spanish nationals.
19. Pennell, C.R., Ideology and Practical Politics: A Case Study of the Rif War in Morocco, 1921-1926, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, February 1982.
20. Francisco, Luis Miguel, Annual, 1921: Crónica de un desastre, AF Editores, October 2005, pp. 17-20.
21. Goes, Carmen, Igueriben, SERGA, Nº 22, March/April 2003.
22. One of the more recent narratives on the Battle of Annual is: Francisco, Luis Miguel, Annual, 1921: Crónica de un desastre, AF Editores, October 2005.
23. It remains unknown if General Fernández Silvestre was killed or committed suicide during the happenings at Annual.
24. Álvarez, José E., Tank Warfare During the Rif Rebellion: 1921-1926, ARMOR Magazine, January 1997, p. 26.
25. Álvarez, José E., Between Gallipoli and D-Day: Alhucemas, 1925, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1999, p. 81.
26. Galey, John H., Bridegrooms of Death: A Profile Study of the Spanish Foreign Legion, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 2, April 1969, pp. 56-60.
27. García, Dionisio, Renault FT 17 en España (1): La Guerra de Marruecos, SERGA, Nº 30, July/August 2004, p. 9.
28. Álvarez, José E., Tank Warfare During the Rif Rebellion: 1921-1926, ARMOR Magazine, January 1997, pp. 26-27.
29. Fleming, Shannon E. and Fleming, Ann K., Primo de Rivera and Spain’s Morocco Problem, 1923-27, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 12, No. 1, January 1977, pp. 85-90.
30. For information on the legion’s role at Alhucemas see: Álvarez, José E., Between Gallipoli and D-Day: Alhucemas, 1925, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1999, p. 81. Information concerning the make-up of the invading forces from: Flórez, Dionisio García, Alhucemas, el desembarco: Una Mirada retrospective en 75 aniversario, SERGA, Nº 7, September/October 2000, pp. 50-51.
31. Information on the Spanish marines from: Álvarez, Javier and Medina, María Luisa, La Columna de Desembarco de los Acorazados de la Clase España, SERGA, Nº 51, January/Frebuary 2008.
32. Flórez, Dionisio García, Alhucemas, el desembarco: Una Mirada retrospective en 75 aniversario, SERGA, Nº 7, September/October 2000, p. 51.
33. Álvarez, José E., Between Gallipoli and D-Day: Alhucemas, 1925, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1999, p. 86.
34. Ibid., pp. 86-87.
35. García, Dionisio, Renault FT 17 en España (1): La Guerra de Marruecos, SERGA, Nº 30, July/August 2004, pp. 19-22.
36. , C.R., Ideology and Practical Politics: A Case Study of the Rif War in Morocco, 1921-1926, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, February 1982, p. 24.
37. Álvarez, José E., Between Gallipoli and D-Day: Alhucemas, 1925, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1999, p. 88.
38. Ibid., p. 89.
39. Most of the information on the landings is taken from: Álvarez, José E., Between Gallipoli and D-Day: Alhucemas, 1925, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1999 and Flórez, Dionisio García, Alhucemas, el desembarco: Una Mirada retrospective en 75 aniversario, SERGA, Nº 7, September/October 2000.
40. Bittner, Donald F., Britannia’s Sheathed Sword: The Royal Marines and Amphibious Warfare in the Interwar Years – a Passive Response, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 55, No. 3, July 1991, pp. 345-347.

Bump

If the above didn't just smash your head in with a hammer of 'Epic Win' then let me congradulate yourself on your survival and that for a full recovery... You should really check out this (z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom) site.

Bumpzors; I wonder how many people we can actually expect to join.

why rollplay armed conflict at all? its not as if real challanges are anything that can be solved by beating anything or anyone over the head.

tecnology is one of my primary intrests, but in the gratification it brings while puzzling out the real challanges of making and keeping it in harmony with nature, not how to beat people over the head by trying to see how big a hole in the ground we can make with it.

where's the fun in imaginationless dumbing down? besides, even without bringing spicifics of tecnology into it (OR economics OR idiology), anytime you're simming conflict you're always gonna have a certain amount of "he died first!", "no he did!"

my favorite tank is still the septic tank: one thing that's actually good for something, dispite, even because of, what its full of.

=^^=
.../\...

why rollplay armed conflict at all?

Because, if it's done right it can be fun.

anytime you're simming conflict you're always gonna have a certain amount of "he died first!", "no he did!"

It depends who you role-play with.

my favorite tank is still the septic tank: one thing that's actually good for something, dispite, even because of, what its full of.


It should be the Nakíl. :D

Bump.

Bump.

^ please

ive registered but ive got to wait to be approved before i can post!!!!

thats gonna put allot of people off

It was a necessity due to spam; I was about to delete your account since it was @googlemail.com, and a lot of spam has come from there ... but your name seemed legit; good thing I approved.

lol thanks bloody spamers make life difficult for everyone thanx



ok ive posted my first wepon

Another glorified bump!

Spain's Panzer IVs
The end of the Spanish Civil War in 1939 saw a drastic ‘modernization’ of Spain’s armored forces. Of course, the word ‘modernization’ can only be used when comparing Spain’s armor prior to the war with what it was left at the war’s end. Spain purchased her first tank on 19 May 1919 from the French Renault factory. This tank was the French FT-17, designed during the First World War, and the tank represented a fairly important step in the mechanization of the Spanish Army. Despite Spanish interests in acquiring at least another ten vehicles, the French government was unwilling to complete further orders. It wasn’t until the Spanish colonial disaster at the Battle of Annual that the French government finally conceded to the sale of another eleven FT-17s, including one command tank. These twelve tanks served in the Spanish Protectorate of Northern Morocco between 1922 and 1926, partaking in the amphibious landing at Alhucemas in September 1925. When the Spanish Civil War began in July 1936, two small regiments were outfitted with a total of ten FT-17 tanks – both the Republic and the Nationalist uprising were able to gain control of one of these regiments a piece. For all intents and purposes, the Spanish Civil War began with ten obsolete FT-17s and six CA1 Schneider tanks of the same era. The CA1s had been sold by the French government to Spain in the same deal as the FT-17s, and also served during the Rif War in Morocco.

By the end of the war, the victorious Nationalist Front under the leadership of Francisco Franco found itself in possession of a large fleet of German supplied Panzer I light tanks, Italian L-3-35 tankettes and over one hundred captured Soviet T-26s. Although this material was considerably superior to the ten FT-17s which found themselves in working condition in July 1936, it was already obsolete when compared to contemporaneous equipment in use by the belligerent nations of the Second World War. In fact, the Germans had negated to supply Spain with the most advanced tanks available to them at the time. Understandably, production did not allow for the employment of newer models of armored fighting vehicles in Spain between 1936 and 1939, but the fact that newer tanks were already in existence during the Spanish Civil War only serves to underscore the point that Spanish armor was severely antiquated in face of potential future threats.

For example, as Germany supplied the Nationalist Front with Panzer Is, they already began the production of the Panzer III Ausf A. In comparison to the pair of MG13 7.92mm light machine guns which armed each Panzer I, early model Panzer IIIs were armed with the superior 37mm L/45 canon. The heaviest tank gun in the Spanish arsenal was the T-26s 45mm high velocity cannons and these couldn’t compare to the more potent guns being unveiled by the Germans and Soviets. In fact, Nationalist Panzer Is and L-3-35s were found to be worthless against Republican T-26s and BT-5s. During fighting in the approaches to Madrid in 1936, the machine guns mounted on the two fascist light tanks were too weak to penetrate the 15mm steel armor on the T-26. The immediate Spanish response was to begin a modernization program of her Panzer Is during the war, culminating in a short-lived attempt to rearm a number of Panzer Is with the Italian 20mm Breda model 1935 anti-air cannon. With a penetration of 40mm, it was considered that the 140 gram armor piercing projectile and the gun were sufficient to defeat Soviet armor used by the Republicans. However, only four were transformed and subsequent attempts to mount 37mm and even 45mm anti-tank guns on the Panzer I failed before the physical work was even attempted. In the end, the Nationalist army pressed into service captured T-26 to even the odds against their opponents. So important did the T-26s become that German general von Thoma offered 500 pesetas for each captured T-26!

In the immediate post-war, Spanish attempts at the production of an indigenous tank also failed. Although production of Spain’s Verdeja light tank was ordered to begin as early as January 1939 – production as soon as the vehicle was completely completed in the prototype stage –, production of this tank ultimately faltered due to the lack of a dedicated engine and the adequate type of steel. Nevertheless, the Verdeja deserves mention due to the amount of innovation represented by the project. In some ways, the Verdeja was too advanced for its age and highly unorthodox. For example, it is one of the first tanks to position the engine at the front of the hull to increase protection for the crew. This feature was unseen in any other tank thereafter until the advent of the Israeli Merkava in 1979. The Verdeja mounted a captured 45mm tank gun and originally used a 120mm Ford Zephyr gasoline engine. Perhaps one of the most innovative features was the new track system, designed to avoid derailments – the roadwheels were positioned within a centerline groove within the track. Unfortunately, although the Verdeja was found to be completely superior to the T-26, the project faltered in the face of the lack of enough steel for vehicle construction. The singular Verdeja 1 prototype was later converted into a 75mm self-propelled artillery piece – a project which also failed –, which can be seen today at the tank museum of El Goloso. Another prototype, this time of the future Verdeja 2 project, can be found at the Infantry Academy at Toledo – the Verdeja 2 was also never put into production.

By the early 1940s Spain found herself with an ageing tank fleet composed of armor a decade old and further degrading in usefulness in the face of the quick pace of armor development during the Second World War. In March 1943, Spanish representative General of the Artillery Carlos Martínez Campos began negotiating with the German government for the acquisition of German armor. In specific, the Spanish Army was looking to procure two hundred and fifty tanks armed with either a 45 or 50mm cannon, which may have corresponded to the latest versions of the Panzer III, and one hundred tanks armed with 75mm cannons, which were the Panzer IVs. The two hundred and fifty tanks with 50mm cannons were to replace Spanish Panzer Is and L-3-35s, while the Panzer IVs were destined to replace the T-26. By 1943 Daimler-Benz was producing the Panzer III Ausf L with the 50mm L/60 high velocity anti-tank cannon and an armor protection of 57mm on the turret! Unfortunately, ultimately the German government decided to agree to a sale of only twenty Panzer IV Ausf Hs and ten StuG III Ausf Gs, which were supplied to Spain by December 1943. This sale represented only a fifth of the original order for Panzer IVs, and none of the order for the lighter Panzer III. Regardless, the Panzer IV was a considerable improvement, even if the eventual order failed to allow the complete replacement of the obsolete light tanks already in the Spanish Army.

In Germany, production of the Panzer IV began in April 1936, and these were armed with the low velocity 75mm L/24 cannon. However, low production ultimately meant that the majority of tanks partaking in the invasions of Poland (1939) and France (1940) were still light tanks such as the Panzer I, Panzer II and Czech designed vehicles. In fact, armor available to the Germans for the May 1940 invasion of France amounted to only 278 Panzer IVs and 349 Panzer IIIs. On the other hand, the Werhmacht could count on no less than 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 106 PzKpfw 35(t)s and 228 PzKpfw 38(t)s. The better German tanks only accounted for roughly a third of the invasion force! In the light of the inefficiency of the 75mm L/24 gun in penetrating enemy armor during operations in France, German factories began to produce the Panzer IV with the improved KwK40 75mm L/43 long-gun, and ultimately even this was lengthened to 48 calibers to improve penetration.

The version acquired by Spain or the Ausf H, began production in May 1943 and featured a new cast drive sprocket, a strengthened final drive and increased protection on the turret roof surface area. In June 1943, the 50mm base steel armor and the 30mm appliqué steel were replaced by a single plate of steel armor 80mm thick and the vision ports on the side of the tank were erased. Like the Ausf G predecessor, the Panzer IV Ausf H was armed with the longer KwK40 75mm L/48 high velocity anti-tank gun. Against the M4A2 Sherman, the Panzer IV Ausf H could penetrate at over 1,000m, while the Sherman could only hope to perforate the 80mm thick steel plates on the turret of the Panzer IV at 100m. It was only with the arrival of the M4A4 Sherman when the Western Allies finally had a considerable advantage over the German Panzer IV medium tank. The Ausf H weighed twenty-five tons and had an inferior cross-country velocity than its predecessors, and was given the Panzer III’s six speed transmission.

Despite the fact that Spain only received a fraction of what it had originally asked for, in February 1944 Spain reopened talks to acquire more tanks. The second attempt is known as Programa Ankara, and this time Spain asked for thirty-three Panzer IVs, while simultaneously the president of the German export company AGEKA attempted to gain Spain a further order of sixty-seven Panzer IVs – ultimately, this would suggest the acquisition of another one hundred of this model. At one point, it was even suggested that Spain was interested in acquiring a number of Tiger heavy tanks. Safe to say, none of these programs succeeded in their goal and by the end of the Second World War Spain could count on only twenty Panzer IV Ausf H medium tanks. The Panzer IV represented the best tank in Spanish service between 1944 and 1954, and were deployed together with T-26s and Panzer Is. The situation after the end of negotiations with the Germans explains the interests in the Spanish Army to continue the Verdeja project with an all-knew tank design.

In 1954 Spain began receiving large amounts of military material from the United States. According to one source, Spain received a total 389 M47 medium tanks in the late 1950s to replace her entire tank fleet. All T-26 and Panzer I light tanks were replaced in Spain’s Brunete armored division, and the Panzer IV replaced the L-3-35 tankette in a number of cavalry regiments. But, even the Panzer IVs began to be replaced by the North American M24 Chaffee Light Tank by the late 1950s. In light of their replacement, seventeen of the twenty Panzer IVs were sold to Syria in December 1965, who used them against the Israeli Defense Force during the Six Day War in June 1967. In the mid-90s two of the seventeen tanks sold to Syria were still intact within Israeli museums, although one was eventually sold to WTS Koblenz and can now be visited in a German museum. Spain still conserves three Panzer IVs, which weren’t sold to Syria in 1967. These can be found at El Goloso (Madrid), Burgos and Santovenia de Pisuerga (Valladolid).

In late 2004, the company SPA-MIR began work on the restoration of the Panzer IV at El Goloso. The project included the restoration of much of the steel substructure, since it was found that most of it had rusted over through the years. The restoration continued for just under a year and the vehicle was completely revitalized. In fact, the restoration was so successful that the Panzer IV found itself in working condition. One of the few discrepancies was the color of paint chosen for the vehicle; the stereotypical grey of German armor was chosen, even though German Panzer IVs were never painted this tone of color on the Ausf H model. Nevertheless, the restoration was of immense importance to the successful maintenance of the Panzer IV, and to date is the best kept vehicle at El Goloso. Unfortunately, the engine recently broke down and no agreement has been reached between the Spanish Army and SPA-MIR on the maintenance of the vehicle. All other vehicles in the museum are in the same condition of waste and rust. According to military personnel, currently ‘restoration’ refers to the application of a new coat of paint to cover the rusting, and most of the vehicles are completely hollow on the inside.

Despite the sorrowful state of surviving Spanish Panzer IVs, it’s a privilege to still be able to see the history of Spanish armor first-hand. Furthermore, for a decade the Panzer IV Ausf H was the most powerful tank in Spain’s inventory and is one of the few tanks which can be proud of serving alongside a hodgepodge of other vehicles, including the Panzer I, T-26 and the M47 medium tank. Perhaps when funding allows, the Spanish military will look into the restoration of the tanks in the El Goloso tank park, and specifically at the maintenance of the Panzer IV’s engine. Until then, we are left with the ability to visit one of the few German tanks to have ever entered service with the Spanish Army. Apart from the Panzer I, the Panzer IV was the only German tank in Spain between 1943 and 2004. Only recently, with the beginning of production of the Spanish Leopard 2E in Santa Bárbara Sistemas (Spain) has Spain opted for a German panzer.

Interestingly, the acquisition of 108 Leopard 2A4s in 1998 and the beginning of indigenous production of 219 Leopard 2Es were preceded by a Spanish indigenous main battle tank project. By the 1980s the Spanish tank fleet was composed of AMX-30Es, produced in Spain, M47E1 upgrades, and M48E upgrades. The former, which made up the bulk of Spain’s heavy armor, was plagued by mechanical issues related to the transmission and engine. By the time production had ended, Spain was already looking for a replacement. In 1983 the Spanish Government and Krauss-Maffei, the manufacturers of the Leopard 2, agreed to a memorandum of understanding related to the transfer of technology to Spain’s Santa Bárbara Sistemas. In 1984 Santa Bárbara Sistemas was awarded a contract for the production of 500 Lince main battle tanks, of which 100 were destined for export. In simple terms, the Lince was a smaller version of the Leopard 2A4, using the same gun, but weighed only forty-nine metric tons. Powered by a 1,200hp engine, the Spanish Lince was designed for mobility and traded armor protection in for low-weight and relatively high-mobility. The project was canceled and Spain opted to simply procure the Leopard 2. However, due to the lack of immediate finances, the Spanish government agreed to contract Santa Bárbara Sistemas to manufacture 150 modernization kits for Spain’s 299 AMX-30Es – the other 149 were ‘reconstructed’ to working conditions, although these were replaced by M60A3TTS beginning in 1992. One could say that the tank modernization of Spain’s fleet between 1980 and 2003 is remarkably similar to the circumstances of the modernization of 1939-1945!

Ba-bump.

#d needs your support people. Help make II a better place.

Yus.

gizlle join yus

Roma V and someone else were recently approved. Welcome!

Cool stuff to hear. More people join.

Yes, we need to reach 350 members. >_> (we lost like 20 to 30 when I deleted all the spam accounts)

Bump ^

- Bedouin Raiders was recently approved, bringing membership total to 317.

Bump ^

Makaar approved - 318 members!

Bump. >_>

LOL WUT?? 2x SPAMERS DESTROYED

Approved:

- Red Talon
- Agroprom

- Karullia approved.

my favorite tank is still the septic tank: one thing that's actually good for something, dispite, even because of, what its full of. It should be the Nakíl. :D
Like they make AK-47 umbrellas now?

Great idea!

"Your very own Nakíl tank:
THE NEW NAKIL SEPTIC
From the Empire of Golden Throne of Macabees!

.

.

.

Two new members:

- Tallenpoint
- daistallia 2104

Bumpz0rs

LULZ Bump

http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=3389)

Spent the day looking at the Naval forum on the NS Draftroom (that's all I really had time for, as I went back to through all the pages on that forum). Some of those designs are ridiculous. Superdreadnaughts that can be measured in significant fractions of a mile (in length and beam), massive guns (largest I'd seen on there was 38"), insane amounts of VLS on ships (one ship I'd seen had 6,000), and ludicrous price tags (IIRC, one superdreadnaught I saw on there had a price tag over 1 trillion).

Most look good, though.

That's why no one really endorses SDs. They're absurd.

Spent the day looking at the Naval forum on the NS Draftroom (that's all I really had time for, as I went back to through all the pages on that forum). Some of those designs are ridiculous. Superdreadnaughts that can be measured in significant fractions of a mile (in length and beam), massive guns (largest I'd seen on there was 38"), insane amounts of VLS on ships (one ship I'd seen had 6,000), and ludicrous price tags (IIRC, one superdreadnaught I saw on there had a price tag over 1 trillion).

Most look good, though.

As an 06, you really ought to have been aware of the SDN craze

As an 06, you really ought to have been aware of the SDN craze

I haven't been roleplaying all that much. I made a few threads when I first started, then gravitated towards NSG, and only recently began coming back to II.

and ludicrous price tags (IIRC, one superdreadnaught I saw on there had a price tag over 1 trillion). And some of them should cost even more - they'd be ludicrously difficult if possible at all to build.

But you might have noticed almost all of them were pretty old, at least on the new NSD, the oldest ones. And what's more, it was the NSD which killed the "superdreadnought" fad.

^_^ Bump

Very neat. Our nation will consider joining soon. I like the title of the program. Very good idea in my opinion.

Signed,
President John Smith

This is an OOC forum, although you should join.

Burtilania accepted as a member; 326 - all the ones I'm going to delete with a prune, soon enough.

Bump.

And some of them should cost even more - they'd be ludicrously difficult if possible at all to build.

But you might have noticed almost all of them were pretty old, at least on the new NSD, the oldest ones. And what's more, it was the NSD which killed the "superdreadnought" fad.

Thank God for that one!

Respectful note to all NSD members: Please, don't bring what is happening on that forum to here. Let's keep NSD issues on NSD.


To others: Pruning of all members with 0 or 1 posts will occur tomorrow.

Respectful note to all NSD members: Please, don't bring what is happening on that forum to here. Let's keep NSD issues on NSD.


To others: Pruning of all members with 0 or 1 posts will occur tomorrow.

Ah crap. Now I've got to make a few posts, so I don't have to re-register.

-Izhevskian confirmed.
-Izhevskian Arms denied (the first one is all that is necessary).
-People who were pruned will have to re-register. Around 60 members were pruned.

-Gun Manufacturers confirmed.

Wow, this thread should have 273 posts by now (NSD has 273 members) - you're underperforming!


---


BTW, could you remove the mentions of me in the OP? As I've said, I might come back to NSD once in a while for a laugh, but in the role I was there, i.e. as a design reviewer, I've realized the futility of it, and am gone.

I would simply prefer not to be associated with this board anymore.
At least not until the "old guard" fades away, and that's not anytime soon.


.

Bump.

Back up ^_^