Italy stays out of World War Two?

[stevep]

Feb 14, 2020 16:37:30 GMT 1bigrich said:

Sept 24, 2019 20:57:19 GMT stevep said:

  In the shorter term there are some advantages to Germany as it doesn't get involved in the Balkans - assuming Italy doesn't attack Greece as OTL which is likely to bring them into war with Britain - nor later in N Africa and Italy.  However the big winner here is likely to be Britain.

Concur, as I said in the other thread, just not having combat in the Med and Africa and being able to bring commerce across the Mediterranean will be a huge advantage to the UK

  While the campaigns in the Med and N Africa taught a lot of important lessons and Britain would still have to watch Italy, plus Italy provides a potential gap in the British blockade, albeit that's only really important after Hitler attacks the Soviets the campaigns also tied down huge resources both in their actual combat and in supplying forces.  This means more for other areas, most especially ships both naval and merchant for the vital Atlantic battle.  Especially once the threat of an invasion of Britain is gone the bulk of the sub fleet will probably return to the Far East, the theatre they were designed for and can do most good.  Similarly without the N African campaign a lot more Indian and Australian as well as some British forces are going to be available to reinforce Malaya and Burma and when necessary the DEI.  Ditto with some air power and that was the most urgent deficit in the Dec 41 period.  Also without the conflict in the Med you won't have the heavy losses the RN suffered, especially in the last half of 1941.  One other factor is that without the Italian fleet as a clear combatant, Britain might be less concerned about the French fleet and hence no Oran attack.  [Or even without Italy entering the war the French government or part of might decide to fight on from Algeria].

Italy could get very wealthy dealing with both sides. She was already contracted to sell Re2000s to the RAF; she might be building fighters for both sides. It's also possible German and/or Britain will come calling with contracts to build their own designs of aircraft, vehicles and engines for their war efforts. Italy at the time is not exactly the United States, but she does have industrial capacity close to both powers that could be utilized.

  All those butterflies can carry things in many different directions.  The allies will still win assuming that the US is brought in at about the same time as a full combatant and probably the war in Europe ends a bit earlier, unless the allies say try a 43 invasion of France and it goes pear shaped.  Japan is also likely to be defeated earlier, possibly about a year earlier depending on the attribution of forces by the allies.  This could also mean a united Korea and possibly a different ending to the war in China.  Its also however, with no B29's or nukes and less time to starve Japan into submission, mean an invasion of Japan, probably sometime in 44 or early 45 which is likely to cost the US a lot of troops and the Japanese population a hell of a lot more.  Which again could make the post-war future of Japan greatly different.

Agreed, it's over once the US is in. As I said again in the other thread, Tom Phillips might have a real fleet when he's dispatched to Singapore. He might be able to keep his big ships in port while his lighter forces deal with the Japanese invasion of Malaya.

With modern RAF aircraft committed to its defense, Malaya will be a tough nut to crack. Even A-20 Havocs and P-40 Warhawks will be better in defense of the peninsula than Vickers Vildebeeast and Brewster Buffalos. And a commitment of experienced troops and even light armor could give the Japanese fits in the fight for Singapore, assuming they make it that far.

  The Soviets are likely to be a bit weaker without allied force typing the Germans down as early and probably going to be very paranoid if China ends up staying in KMT hands.  [Ok, we're talking about Stalin here so make that even more paranoid].  Likely to see similar borders in terms of the Iron Curtain although possibly more of the Balkans will end up in the western sphere.

If Roundup goes off in 1943, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the division to be further East. Perhaps an East and West Poland, or a the Western Allies stopping the Belorussian boarder.

  Anyway initial thoughts of the nature of WWII if Italy stays neutral throughout.  Of course that would also leave Mussolini in power after the war so what attitude the western allies take to a still fascist Italy and its colonies in Africa could be an important issue.

Several years ago I posted a hypothetical on the BC board (ez board days, long gone now) about a Monarchist coup in Italy deposing of Mussolini and the Fascist. The hypothetical revolved around the RM selling the rebuilds abroad while continuing with the Venetos to modernize the Fleet.

Many posters commented on who they thought the customers would be from Sweden and Argentina to Germany and France. But the likely ones turned out to be the Netherlands for the NEI (in the role of the 1047s while those ships are building) and the RN, to keep the other pair out of other powers' hands. I've worked intermittently on an AH with that as the premise, focusing on the careers of the ships in RNN and RN service. I hope to complete it in the future. But such sales by the RM could well be part of Italy staying out, especially light forces.

My thoughts,

1bigrich,

  In general agreement although I have doubts about a 43 invasion of France being successful.  It would depend on the circumstances but the one thing N Africa did, as well as cost a hell of a lot in men, money and material, was give Britain a good bit of experienced and also later the US in Torch and then Italy.    This includes clearing out some of the deadwood and gaining front line experience and also things like developing air support for ground units and amphibious experience.  Also while with less pressure on the RN the Atlantic battle might be won decisively by early 43 would there be things like the Mulberries and Hobart's Funnies?  [Possibly also Pluto although I've heard some reports it was relatively unsuccessful.]  True without experience in N Africa and Italy the Germans might be a lot less concerned with fighting in the face of overwhelming air power as Rommel was OTL but there is the potential for a serious disaster here.

  The Battlecruiser board, I think you mean Bob's old one, is still active or did you mean your not active on it any more?  Can't remember seeing your name either there or on the BB v BB forum for quite a while.  I'm stevep59 on those.

  Steve

 

[1bigrich]

Feb 15, 2020 14:37:06 GMT stevep said:

  In general agreement although I have doubts about a 43 invasion of France being successful.  It would depend on the circumstances but the one thing N Africa did, as well as cost a hell of a lot in men, money and material, was give Britain a good bit of experienced and also later the US in Torch and then Italy.    This includes clearing out some of the deadwood and gaining front line experience and also things like developing air support for ground units and amphibious experience.  Also while with less pressure on the RN the Atlantic battle might be won decisively by early 43 would there be things like the Mulberries and Hobart's Funnies?  [Possibly also Pluto although I've heard some reports it was relatively unsuccessful.]  True without experience in N Africa and Italy the Germans might be a lot less concerned with fighting in the face of overwhelming air power as Rommel was OTL but there is the potential for a serious disaster here.

Hi Steve,

Roundup was going to put 48 divisions ashore between Le Harve and Bulogne-sur-Mer



That might be ambitious, but we could see the invasion in phases, say between Le Harve and Dieppe, etc. But in 1943 there isn't as much Atlantic Wall.

I agree, without a Med/Africa theatre, US troops aren't going to have previous combat experience outside the Pacific. And while lift might be an issue, there also isn't a commitment of amphibious lift to other theatres in the west either.

I think Watchtower will teach combat loading well enough, as I mentioned to James in the Torch thread. Operation Cleanslate (Rennell Islands) also provides experience in early '43 in the Pacific. Landrab (Aleutians) occurs in May.

I do think there is potential for losses, but the proximity of the British Isles, and the prospect of an Operation Cobra-like use of the 8th Air Force in a tactical role could mitigate the risk of disaster.

  The Battlecruiser board, I think you mean Bob's old one, is still active or did you mean your not active on it any more?  Can't remember seeing your name either there or on the BB v BB forum for quite a while.  I'm stevep59 on those.

  Steve

Yes, Bob's old BC board, back in the ezboard days. Long lost to the wastes of the internet now. I actually save the thread, if you'd like to review it, PM me your email address and I'll send it long.

And I guessed you were stevep59 from there.

Have seen the videos I've been posting? Some nice views of various ships from the WWII era.

Regards,

[stevep]

   1bigrich ,

   Have sent a PM. One question would be where would those 48 divisions come from?  Britain's position is likely to be better but it would be unhappy to supply the majority of those and not sure what the US would have ready at this time.  Also as you say the sea-lift, especially if we don't have a clear victory in the Atlantic by this time.  Going to need a hell of a lot of infrastructure and also supplies for all those forces and the associated air and naval units which isn't going to be practical if the U boats are still a major threat.  Plus its not just US troops I'm thinking about.  The British, Indian and Dominion ones will have a lack of experience as well compared to OTL.  Not sure how much the early amphibious activity in the Pacific, which was on a fairly small scale at this stage, would be applicable to the European theatre.  Similarly is there enough heavy bombers to pound the logistics of N France to isolate the region from reinforcement as OTL?

  Also while there wasn't much of an Atlantic Wall in 43 OTL that was in part because the allies were in no position to launch an invasion with a good likelihood of success.  Here they might be and German is likely to respond by building defences earlier.  A lot depending of course on what's happened in the east as Germany will have resources freed up by Italy not being in the war but could have wasted them there or have done substantially better.  I suspect the former is more likely but could be the latter. 

  I'm not saying it would be an automatic disaster but I think there's a definite and fairly high possibility it could be for the allies. Of course if it did they can regroup and hopefully do it successfully in 44 but it would be costly for the allies forces involved.

  Steve

[1bigrich]

Feb 16, 2020 12:23:35 GMT stevep said:

   1bigrich ,

   Have sent a PM. One question would be where would those 48 divisions come from?  Britain's position is likely to be better but it would be unhappy to supply the majority of those and not sure what the US would have ready at this time.  Also as you say the sea-lift, especially if we don't have a clear victory in the Atlantic by this time.  Going to need a hell of a lot of infrastructure and also supplies for all those forces and the associated air and naval units which isn't going to be practical if the U boats are still a major threat.  Plus its not just US troops I'm thinking about.  The British, Indian and Dominion ones will have a lack of experience as well compared to OTL.  Not sure how much the early amphibious activity in the Pacific, which was on a fairly small scale at this stage, would be applicable to the European theatre.  Similarly is there enough heavy bombers to pound the logistics of N France to isolate the region from reinforcement as OTL?

Hi Steve,

That is a good question. See this site:

www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-Div.html

Some like the 7th or the Americal Division were committed to the Pacific. A number of divisions were stood-up in 1943, and assuming some Canadian and British divisions (and/or Commonwealth), I still think amphibious lift is going to be the limiting factor. Hence my thought we might see phases. Say initial landings near Le Harve, follow-up landings within a week at Bulonge-sur-Mer, then the following week near Dieppe and Abberville. With ports in the landing zones, I don't think Mulberry's would be necessary, but they might be improvised by scuttling ships as was done historically as part of the Mulberry operations.


[/div]

  Also while there wasn't much of an Atlantic Wall in 43 OTL that was in part because the allies were in no position to launch an invasion with a good likelihood of success.  Here they might be and German is likely to respond by building defences earlier.  A lot depending of course on what's happened in the east as Germany will have resources freed up by Italy not being in the war but could have wasted them there or have done substantially better.  I suspect the former is more likely but could be the latter. 

  I'm not saying it would be an automatic disaster but I think there's a definite and fairly high possibility it could be for the allies. Of course if it did they can regroup and hopefully do it successfully in 44 but it would be costly for the allies forces involved.

  Steve

I do agree Roundup would be a risk. But I also think there is a possibility of success. Maybe not with the breakout and race across France like that which followed Overlord, but definitely opening a second front on the continent. And I do think a Dragoon-like operation will take place in the Med, regardless of whether Vichy France is occupied by the Germans or not.

My thoughts,

[stevep]

Feb 17, 2020 12:28:03 GMT 1bigrich said:

Feb 16, 2020 12:23:35 GMT stevep said:

   1bigrich ,

   Have sent a PM. One question would be where would those 48 divisions come from?  Britain's position is likely to be better but it would be unhappy to supply the majority of those and not sure what the US would have ready at this time.  Also as you say the sea-lift, especially if we don't have a clear victory in the Atlantic by this time.  Going to need a hell of a lot of infrastructure and also supplies for all those forces and the associated air and naval units which isn't going to be practical if the U boats are still a major threat.  Plus its not just US troops I'm thinking about.  The British, Indian and Dominion ones will have a lack of experience as well compared to OTL.  Not sure how much the early amphibious activity in the Pacific, which was on a fairly small scale at this stage, would be applicable to the European theatre.  Similarly is there enough heavy bombers to pound the logistics of N France to isolate the region from reinforcement as OTL?

Hi Steve,

That is a good question. See this site:

www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-Div.html

Some like the 7th or the Americal Division were committed to the Pacific. A number of divisions were stood-up in 1943, and assuming some Canadian and British divisions (and/or Commonwealth), I still think amphibious lift is going to be the limiting factor. Hence my thought we might see phases. Say initial landings near Le Harve, follow-up landings within a week at Bulonge-sur-Mer, then the following week near Dieppe and Abberville. With ports in the landing zones, I don't think Mulberry's would be necessary, but they might be improvised by scuttling ships as was done historically as part of the Mulberry operations.

[/div]

  Also while there wasn't much of an Atlantic Wall in 43 OTL that was in part because the allies were in no position to launch an invasion with a good likelihood of success.  Here they might be and German is likely to respond by building defences earlier.  A lot depending of course on what's happened in the east as Germany will have resources freed up by Italy not being in the war but could have wasted them there or have done substantially better.  I suspect the former is more likely but could be the latter. 

  I'm not saying it would be an automatic disaster but I think there's a definite and fairly high possibility it could be for the allies. Of course if it did they can regroup and hopefully do it successfully in 44 but it would be costly for the allies forces involved.

  Steve

I do agree Roundup would be a risk. But I also think there is a possibility of success. Maybe not with the breakout and race across France like that which followed Overlord, but definitely opening a second front on the continent. And I do think a Dragoon-like operation will take place in the Med, regardless of whether Vichy France is occupied by the Germans or not.

My thoughts,

[/quote][/div]

1bigrich,

  OK by a quick count there were 72 divs organised by the end of 1942, which included 2 airbourne, 1 Cavalry and 14 Armoured.  Which is more than I expected by that date.This does include units committed and/or lost in the Pacific, such as the Philippine division.  Of those exactly half, i.e. 36 were organised in 42.  Hence the US would have the strength to provide the bulk of the landing forces, say 30 from the US and 18 from Britain/Empire/Commonwealth, assuming demands elsewhere are met and the forces are considered trained enough.  Plus as you say they could be transported to Britain in time, maintained there and then landed quickly enough in France.

  I'm doubtful about the early success of gaining a working port as that was partly what the Dieppe operation attempted and the Germans are likely to defend ports heavily simply to prevent that happening and to trash as much as possible the facilities of any likely to fall to the allies.  I think a lot of stuff OTL was landed on the beaches as well as the Mulberry but if there's a storm, like OTL not only could that destroy a Mulberry as IIRC it did it would definitely stop beach landings.

  I'm doubtful there would be a simultaneous landing in S France.  Simply because of the lack of shipping and also the lack of bases within air range to support such landings.  Also if, as is likely Vichy France still exists as a separate state then such an operation is likely to make its government and probably most of its military and population view the allies as enemies.  It might also prompt problems with both Italy and Spain at the worst and the resulting closure of the western Med to allied operations.  [Depending on how likely a Germany victory still looked or not and whether since an attack on a technically neutral France would have Mussolini and Franco thinking the western allies were targeting all 'fascist' states regardless of whether they were at war or not].  Although if the allies do get ashore and eventually break out the issue of Vichy and possibly either side flanking through its territory is going to be a matter both sides would have to consider.

  Do the allies have enough longer ranged fighters to maintain a decent level of air cover over the landings, especially since your assuming a much wider landing zone compared to OTL and the Luftwaffe, although heavily outnumbered, haven't been worn down as much yet.  They will have avoided the losses in N Africa and Italy, which were sizeable for the air force as well as the army.

  One other possible factor is the wider strategic situation.  For instance if say its something like OTL with the Germans contemplating a Kursk type offensive and the Soviets digging in but also being prepared to launch their own attack it might mean the Germans, seeing some offensive in N France is coming take a more defensive stance themselves.  Which is what at least some of their generals allegedly, wanted, to take the blow in the east and then counter attack the flanks of the Soviet forces.  If Germany does this they might both have some reserve to counter attack landings in France and also probably a larger one in the east and avoid the OTL bleeding of much of their armoured forces in the east.  At the worst you might see a western invasion, which prompts Stalin to launch his own attack, then the western one quickly stalls and is abandon and the Soviets are facing a much harder task in the east.  This could even mean a paranoid Stalin thinking he had been set up to bled both the Red Army and Germans dry and contemplating a separate peace.  At the very least if a western offensive that is abandon after a couple of weeks say is going to earn his wrath.

  Steve

[1bigrich]

Feb 17, 2020 14:48:20 GMT stevep said:

  OK by a quick count there were 72 divs organised by the end of 1942, which included 2 airbourne, 1 Cavalry and 14 Armoured.  Which is more than I expected by that date.This does include units committed and/or lost in the Pacific, such as the Philippine division.  Of those exactly half, i.e. 36 were organised in 42.  Hence the US would have the strength to provide the bulk of the landing forces, say 30 from the US and 18 from Britain/Empire/Commonwealth, assuming demands elsewhere are met and the forces are considered trained enough; Plus as you say they could be transported to Britain in time, maintained there and then landed quickly enough in France.

Hi Steve,

I think that's viable, with the US providing the bulk of divisions. The US Army wanted to cross the channel in '43, then they should bear the brunt of the burden.

The US Army was in transition at the time, switching from Square divisions to Triangular Divisions in the 1940-42 period, so there might be a desire to test the new formation as soon as possible in continental warfare. And by 'continental' I don't mean European but rather warfare on a land mass larger than an island like in the Pacific.

Another thing I didn't think of, a mid-43 jump off puts US Armored Divisions switching between the M3 Grant and the M4 Sherman. The former was outmatched by later up-gunned Panzar IIIs and IVs. Of course, US Army doctrine at the time was tanks took out hard points, while Tank Destroyers killed tanks. Mid-43 would mean the M10 would be the primary tank destroyer. And regardless of doctrine, tanks and tank destroyers executed both roles during the war.

Neither seems to have been terribly handicapping in 1942-43 in the desert or Italy, so I don't know how much impact they would have been in Europe in 1943.

; I'm doubtful about the early success of gaining a working port as that was partly what the Dieppe operation attempted and the Germans are likely to defend ports heavily simply to prevent that happening and to trash as much as possible the facilities of any likely to fall to the allies.  I think a lot of stuff OTL was landed on the beaches as well as the Mulberry but if there's a storm, like OTL not only could that destroy a Mulberry as IIRC it did it would definitely stop beach landings.

I agree, they'll defend the ports. But can they defend the ports from a combined land and sea assault? Also, what would the impact of invasion be without a Dieppe raid? As I recall, Dieppe was one of the reasons for pushing the Atlantic Wall.

  I'm doubtful there would be a simultaneous landing in S France.  Simply because of the lack of shipping and also the lack of bases within air range to support such landings.  Also if, as is likely Vichy France still exists as a separate state then such an operation is likely to make its government and probably most of its military and population view the allies as enemies.  It might also prompt problems with both Italy and Spain at the worst and the resulting closure of the western Med to allied operations.  [Depending on how likely a Germany victory still looked or not and whether since an attack on a technically neutral France would have Mussolini and Franco thinking the western allies were targeting all 'fascist' states regardless of whether they were at war or not].  Although if the allies do get ashore and eventually break out the issue of Vichy and possibly either side flanking through its territory is going to be a matter both sides would have to consider.

I wasn't trying to imply a Dragoon-like invasion of Southern France would be simultaneous. But I do think one will happen, sooner or later after crossing the channel.

  Do the allies have enough longer ranged fighters to maintain a decent level of air cover over the landings, especially since your assuming a much wider landing zone compared to OTL and the Luftwaffe, although heavily outnumbered, haven't been worn down as much yet.  They will have avoided the losses in N Africa and Italy, which were sizeable for the air force as well as the army.

I do think so, and many of those fighters will be P-40 Warhawks and P-39 Airacobras. After all, there's no need for them in the desert as historically. And in a ground support role, they'll be in their element keeping to lower altitudes. Let the P-47s and P-38s stick to escorting the bombers.

One other possible factor is the wider strategic situation.  For instance if say its something like OTL with the Germans contemplating a Kursk type offensive and the Soviets digging in but also being prepared to launch their own attack it might mean the Germans, seeing some offensive in N France is coming take a more defensive stance themselves.  Which is what at least some of their generals allegedly, wanted, to take the blow in the east and then counter attack the flanks of the Soviet forces.  If Germany does this they might both have some reserve to counter attack landings in France and also probably a larger one in the east and avoid the OTL bleeding of much of their armoured forces in the east.  At the worst you might see a western invasion, which prompts Stalin to launch his own attack, then the western one quickly stalls and is abandon and the Soviets are facing a much harder task in the east.  This could even mean a paranoid Stalin thinking he had been set up to bled both the Red Army and Germans dry and contemplating a separate peace.  At the very least if a western offensive that is abandon after a couple of weeks say is going to earn his wrath.
Steve

I have my serious doubts about Stalin forging a separate peace. He didn't when there was no effort for a second front in 1943, I can't see him doing it if there is an attempt, even unsuccessful in 1943 in this scenario. Besides, he needs the western Allies food to feed his people. He can't afford to have that supply cut off.

Contemplating crossing the Channel in 1943 might mean the Soviets get less material aid at points. Stalin might howl about that, but I think the opening of a second front will silence his howls.

My somewhat disjointed thoughts.

Regards,

[stevep]

1bigrich,

Feb 17, 2020 18:47:10 GMT 1bigrich said:
Hi Steve,

I think that's viable, with the US providing the bulk of divisions. The US Army wanted to cross the channel in '43, then they should bear the brunt of the burden.

The US Army was in transition at the time, switching from Square divisions to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_division in the 1940-42 period, so there might be a desire to test the new formation as soon as possible in continental warfare. And by 'continental' I don't mean European but rather warfare on a land mass larger than an island like in the Pacific.

Another thing I didn't think of, a mid-43 jump off puts US Armored Divisions switching between the M3 Grant and the M4 Sherman. The former was outmatched by later up-gunned Panzar IIIs and IVs. Of course, US Army doctrine at the time was tanks took out hard points, while Tank Destroyers killed tanks. Mid-43 would mean the M10 would be the primary tank destroyer. And regardless of doctrine, tanks and tank destroyers executed both roles during the war.

Neither seems to have been terribly handicapping in 1942-43 in the desert or Italy, so I don't know how much impact they would have been in Europe in 1943.

  As you say the US army is in transition which could be another problem but I'm still concerned about the forces of both allies being up to scratch in such a complex operation.  It might work if we can throw enough forces at it fast enough but even then its likely to be very bloody.

I agree, they'll defend the ports. But can they defend the ports from a combined land and sea assault? Also, what would the impact of invasion be without a Dieppe raid? As I recall, Dieppe was one of the reasons for pushing the Atlantic Wall.

  For a time I suspect.  However can the landing forces both attack fortified ports and defend their flanks and their vulnerable beachheads against counter attacking German mobile forces?  We won't have the same level of air superiority and a lot less experience of ground support by the airforces and its unlikely that the roads and railways will be hammered anything like the levels they were OTL in 1944.  [Both because of less number of bombers and less experience in operations.

  Yes its possible that Dieppe might not occur here but again it was against an already defended port and the Germans will realise the importance of denying such to an invader.  Also while a failure it showed a lot of the problems that needed to be faced.  Plus if the allies are building up large forces in England, which would be difficult to hide, and not active elsewhere, such as in the Med the Germans are going to be expecting some invasion attempt and I can't see them not aiming to defend the ports and other key areas especially.

  Overall the key issue is who can reinforce the battle fastest.  If the road and rail links are still largely intact then the Germans can get a lot of forces from slightly further south, say a western reserve around Paris, and from Germany itself and it would be more difficult delaying them.  Albeit still possible.  48 divisions sound a lot but as you say they will have to be landed in stages and weather, need to evacuate forces threatened with destruction and other problems can all delay this further.  It could end up being a killing ground for both side, especially if the allies are putting in a lot of sea and air support but it could be very tight for a successful invasion.

I wasn't trying to imply a Dragoon-like invasion of Southern France would be simultaneous. But I do think one will happen, sooner or later after crossing the channel.

  OK thanks for clarifying.  I'm still doubtful of one occurring later.  If the landings in the north do succeed that it would seem to be unnecessary while its unlikely to work on its own and the Germans can again reinforce such a position while the landings would have very limited air support.  Possibly if there was some agreement with elements in the Vichy regime - say Darlan - who promised unopposed landings and support by local Vichy forces but otherwise I doubt it would be that practical.

I do think so, and many of those fighters will be P-40 Warhawks and P-39 Airacobras. After all, there's no need for them in the desert as historically. And in a ground support role, they'll be in their element keeping to lower altitudes. Let the P-47s and P-38s stick to escorting the bombers.

  There's no need for them in the desert but then the Germans have lost a lot less a/c as well.  However the problem would be could they maintain virtually continous air cover, at least during daylight over the landing beaches.  Or major sweeps over known German airfields.  Because if neither then there is the danger of the Luftwaffe being able to concentrate its forces and attack at a time of its own choosing, possibly overwhelming what CAP is available at any one time and doing a lot of damage to the landed forces and supply.  Or if they have their guided bombs working and before the allies sort out how to jam the signals even to some of the naval forces supporting the operations.

I have my serious doubts about Stalin forging a separate peace. He didn't when there was no effort for a second front in 1943, I can't see him doing it if there is an attempt, even unsuccessful in 1943 in this scenario. Besides, he needs the western Allies food to feed his people. He can't afford to have that supply cut off.

Contemplating crossing the Channel in 1943 might mean the Soviets get less material aid at points. Stalin might howl about that, but I think the opening of a second front will silence his howls.

My somewhat disjointed thoughts.

Regards,

  I suspect its unlikely but if the invasion is defeated fairly quickly, as I fear it might, and Stalin has launched an attack on the basis that the western allies are going to be tying down a lot of the reserves then finds this isn't the case then a Soviet offensive against German eastern forces not yet worn down by a Kursk type attack could see the Red Army, while its likely to gain ground, suffering some heavy losses.  Also once an invasion in the west has failed its pretty certain there won't be another attack in the same year.  As such Germany could risk sending more forces east.

  There were talks in 43 although whether either side was serious or not I don't know and the two were miles apart but there is a risk that Stalin might consider something after such a 43, especially if the Soviet manpower reserves were running as short as some sources suggest.  [This latter is unclear as others argue that there were plenty of men left available to the Soviets.]

  Again not saying its going to happen as I think it unlikely but wouldn't totally rule it out.  At the least a failed western attack that 'lures' the Soviets into a costly offensive that makes only limited gains is going to increase Soviet paranoid further.

[EwellHolmes]

Feb 15, 2020 21:05:59 GMT 1bigrich said:

Feb 15, 2020 14:37:06 GMT stevep said:

  In general agreement although I have doubts about a 43 invasion of France being successful.  It would depend on the circumstances but the one thing N Africa did, as well as cost a hell of a lot in men, money and material, was give Britain a good bit of experienced and also later the US in Torch and then Italy.    This includes clearing out some of the deadwood and gaining front line experience and also things like developing air support for ground units and amphibious experience.  Also while with less pressure on the RN the Atlantic battle might be won decisively by early 43 would there be things like the Mulberries and Hobart's Funnies?  [Possibly also Pluto although I've heard some reports it was relatively unsuccessful.]  True without experience in N Africa and Italy the Germans might be a lot less concerned with fighting in the face of overwhelming air power as Rommel was OTL but there is the potential for a serious disaster here.

Hi Steve,

Roundup was going to put 48 divisions ashore between Le Harve and Bulogne-sur-Mer



That might be ambitious, but we could see the invasion in phases, say between Le Harve and Dieppe, etc. But in 1943 there isn't as much Atlantic Wall.

I agree, without a Med/Africa theatre, US troops aren't going to have previous combat experience outside the Pacific. And while lift might be an issue, there also isn't a commitment of amphibious lift to other theatres in the west either.

I think Watchtower will teach combat loading well enough, as I mentioned to James in the Torch thread. Operation Cleanslate (Rennell Islands) also provides experience in early '43 in the Pacific. Landrab (Aleutians) occurs in May.

I do think there is potential for losses, but the proximity of the British Isles, and the prospect of an Operation Cobra-like use of the 8th Air Force in a tactical role could mitigate the risk of disaster.

  The Battlecruiser board, I think you mean Bob's old one, is still active or did you mean your not active on it any more?  Can't remember seeing your name either there or on the BB v BB forum for quite a while.  I'm stevep59 on those.

  Steve

Yes, Bob's old BC board, back in the ezboard days. Long lost to the wastes of the internet now. I actually save the thread, if you'd like to review it, PM me your email address and I'll send it long.

And I guessed you were stevep59 from there.

Have seen the videos I've been posting? Some nice views of various ships from the WWII era.

Regards,

I'd like to see a citation about ROUND UP putting 48 divisions ashore; not even OVERLORD achieved that.

[EwellHolmes]

On another note: 10% of Germany's truck fleet was detached for duty in Afrika. Attached to the Army Groups in Russia, that could very easily prove decisive in the USSR or at least critical in the regional context for 1941.

[stevep]

Mar 1, 2020 8:10:59 GMT EwellHolmes said:

On another note: 10% of Germany's truck fleet was detached for duty in Afrika. Attached to the Army Groups in Russia, that could very easily prove decisive in the USSR or at least critical in the regional context for 1941.

  When was that 10% occurring?  In 1941 it has an impact on Barbarossa, although possibly not a massive one but I suspect with the initial small size of the DAK that such a figure would applied later, possibly after Torch greatly enlarged the N African campaign?  As it was Rommel often relied on captured British vehicles to enable his operations.

  Plus don't forget the majority of the non-railway supply for the German army, especially as the war continued was by horse drawn wagons.  This would be totally impractical in Libya so that theatre would always have a disproportionately larger part of the German motorised supply.  Also if DAK doesn't got to N Africa, even with Churchill's delusional intervention in Greece, Libya isn't going to last very long and that hugely boost the western allied position in general and the British in particular.  Especially if this was to occur in time for significant experienced forces to be switched east to safeguard Malaya and parts of DEI.

[EwellHolmes]

Mar 1, 2020 12:31:04 GMT stevep said:

Mar 1, 2020 8:10:59 GMT EwellHolmes said:

On another note: 10% of Germany's truck fleet was detached for duty in Afrika. Attached to the Army Groups in Russia, that could very easily prove decisive in the USSR or at least critical in the regional context for 1941.

  When was that 10% occurring?  In 1941 it has an impact on Barbarossa, although possibly not a massive one but I suspect with the initial small size of the DAK that such a figure would applied later, possibly after Torch greatly enlarged the N African campaign?  As it was Rommel often relied on captured British vehicles to enable his operations.

  Plus don't forget the majority of the non-railway supply for the German army, especially as the war continued was by horse drawn wagons.  This would be totally impractical in Libya so that theatre would always have a disproportionately larger part of the German motorised supply.  Also if DAK doesn't got to N Africa, even with Churchill's delusional intervention in Greece, Libya isn't going to last very long and that hugely boost the western allied position in general and the British in particular.  Especially if this was to occur in time for significant experienced forces to be switched east to safeguard Malaya and parts of DEI.

10% from virtually the get go, given the massive logistical requirements of the theater. This added to Army Group North means Leningrad likely falls in early September, as AGN can afford to detach 56th Mechanized Corps to deal with the Starya Russ offensive while maintaining the drive on the city. The thread topic is also Italy staying neutral, so I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about. 

[stevep]

Mar 2, 2020 8:48:56 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Mar 1, 2020 12:31:04 GMT stevep said:

  When was that 10% occurring?  In 1941 it has an impact on Barbarossa, although possibly not a massive one but I suspect with the initial small size of the DAK that such a figure would applied later, possibly after Torch greatly enlarged the N African campaign?  As it was Rommel often relied on captured British vehicles to enable his operations.

  Plus don't forget the majority of the non-railway supply for the German army, especially as the war continued was by horse drawn wagons.  This would be totally impractical in Libya so that theatre would always have a disproportionately larger part of the German motorised supply.  Also if DAK doesn't got to N Africa, even with Churchill's delusional intervention in Greece, Libya isn't going to last very long and that hugely boost the western allied position in general and the British in particular.  Especially if this was to occur in time for significant experienced forces to be switched east to safeguard Malaya and parts of DEI.

10% from virtually the get go, given the massive logistical requirements of the theater. This added to Army Group North means Leningrad likely falls in early September, as AGN can afford to detach 56th Mechanized Corps to deal with the Starya Russ offensive while maintaining the drive on the city. The thread topic is also Italy staying neutral, so I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about. 

  Were they that large initially given that Rommel had instructions for a defensive role, which would have required far less motorised transport?

  Apologies about the rest of the post.  Too many threads and thinking of one where Italy joins the war but Germany doesn't support it.

[EwellHolmes]

Mar 2, 2020 17:52:21 GMT stevep said:

Mar 2, 2020 8:48:56 GMT EwellHolmes said:

10% from virtually the get go, given the massive logistical requirements of the theater. This added to Army Group North means Leningrad likely falls in early September, as AGN can afford to detach 56th Mechanized Corps to deal with the Starya Russ offensive while maintaining the drive on the city. The thread topic is also Italy staying neutral, so I'm not sure what the rest of your post is about. 

  Were they that large initially given that Rommel had instructions for a defensive role, which would have required far less motorised transport?

  Apologies about the rest of the post.  Too many threads and thinking of one where Italy joins the war but Germany doesn't support it.

Libya lacked much in the way of rail infrastructure, so the Afrika Corps required massive amounts of motor transportation to make up for that.

[stevep]

   1bigrich ,

  Now that last definitely sounds interesting.  Hopefully when its finished you would post it here please?

   Those Italian rebuilds aren't a match for the IJN but are definitely more formidable than what the DEI had OTL.  If Britain has a stronger Force Z, almost certainly in a Italy neutral position, and even more importantly more modern land and air forces in the defence of Malaya then the latter could well be far too tough for the Japanese, who can't commit more forces than OTL without abandoning some other operation, probably the invasion of Burma.  Plus a surviving larger force Z coupled with the stronger Dutch colonial forces and whatever the USN can commit will be able to put up a much stronger fight against the IJN.  If the latter throws the kitchen sink at it they will still win but possibly not in time to secure Java, let alone Sumatra.  That in itself would pretty much doom the Japanese in SE Asia and also their war effort elsewhere.

  Steve

[1bigrich]

Mar 1, 2020 8:10:01 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Feb 15, 2020 21:05:59 GMT 1bigrich said:

I'd like to see a citation about ROUND UP putting 48 divisions ashore; not even OVERLORD achieved that.

epic,

Maurice Matloff and Edwin Snell I think have it, but I can't find it in the US Army history.

There is some good info on Roundup here


history.army.mil/books/wwii/SP1941-42/index.htm


specifically in parts VIII and XIII.   At one point it does say that 890,000 men would be in the UK for Roundup, and the assault force (which I take to be the initial assault) would be 77,000 men.   At about 15,000 men in a division, 890,000 would be over 59 divisions.    But nothing specific on numbers of divisions.   '48' is a number I've seen bandied about at different times for Roundup.  

Mar 4, 2020 15:51:12 GMT stevep said:

   1bigrich ,

  Now that last definitely sounds interesting.  Hopefully when its finished you would post it here please?

   Those Italian rebuilds aren't a match for the IJN but are definitely more formidable than what the DEI had OTL.  If Britain has a stronger Force Z, almost certainly in a Italy neutral position, and even more importantly more modern land and air forces in the defence of Malaya then the latter could well be far too tough for the Japanese, who can't commit more forces than OTL without abandoning some other operation, probably the invasion of Burma.  Plus a surviving larger force Z coupled with the stronger Dutch colonial forces and whatever the USN can commit will be able to put up a much stronger fight against the IJN.  If the latter throws the kitchen sink at it they will still win but possibly not in time to secure Java, let alone Sumatra.  That in itself would pretty much doom the Japanese in SE Asia and also their war effort elsewhere.

  Steve

Steve,

The tentative plan is for the Dutch to take the two Cesares, and they'll be named Makassar and Bali while the 1047 project get under way.   They'll be modified with DP 4.7in/12cm Bofors secondaries for Dutch service. 
Britain will step in and buy the two Dorias mid-rebuild, to keep them out of others' hands.   The RN will have them sail to the UK for completion once able to move under their own power.   While not a match for a true capital ship, they can chase the Panzarschiffe and threaten Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.    I'm thinking they'll be called Leopard and Monarch.   Their range does limit them, but if the Dutch are keeping them in the NEI, and the British concentrating them on Scapa-Ireland-Halifax and/or Gibraltar, range shouldn't be an issue.

I'll keep you posted when/if things progress...

Regards all,