1942, Operation Torch truly successful?

[James G]

Should Allied efforts to bring on side the Vichy French administration in North Africa have worked as planned, there wasn't supposed to be any fighting between the Allies and the French.
If this came about, what effect does this have with the Allied advance eastwards to get to Tunis? Can the French in Tunisia hold off the Germans - or at least truly delay them - to allow Allied forces to arrive and quickly win the fight far earlier than in OTL?

[stevep]

Nov 22, 2019 11:52:58 GMT James G said:

Should Allied efforts to bring on side the Vichy French administration in North Africa have worked as planned, there wasn't supposed to be any fighting between the Allies and the French.
If this came about, what effect does this have with the Allied advance eastwards to get to Tunis? Can the French in Tunisia hold off the Germans - or at least truly delay them - to allow Allied forces to arrive and quickly win the fight far earlier than in OTL?

  Possibly, especially since they would control the bulk of the ground so the OTL influx of Axis forces would have to be by a resisted invasion.  Possibly also if the allies take the British approach and land further east, including IIRC landings in Tunisia itself.  With support from the local French forces and access to airfields and the like there for their forces to fly in it would be very difficult for the Germans to force a landing.  Rommel is still retreating towards Tripoli so his force and the accompanying Italians would probably be forced to surrender which would also be a big gain.  Your likely to see N Africa cleaned up pretty quickly which might mean a quicker invasion of Sicily.

  On the down side the Germans will have the forces that OTL were moved to Tunisia and captured there still available and possibly waiting for them in Sicily.  Also the allies will have less experience, especially in opposed landings and this could be nasty. 

[James G]

The down side is actually quite something that the Allies needed to learn to be honest. The US Army had a torrid time in Tunisia but it showed them what they needed to do to change. If they'd learnt that lesson in Sicily, they could have been thrown back into the sea whereas in Tunisia they could retreat.
The Germans and Italians did lose a lot of men in Tunisia who didn't fight in Sicily and could have, yes. However, if the French were able to stop the Germans getting in, and the British coming from Oran were able to get to them quick as planned (I'm thinking the landing sites remain the same but the French don't oppose the invasion), that would mean that Rommel's retreating army could have been stuck in Libya. There was the Mareth Line IIRC which was meant to stop an Italian invasion of Tunisia. My thinking was that that position could be held too.
Of course, other Axis troops who didn't come to North Africa would thus be in Sicily.

[stevep]

Nov 22, 2019 18:50:21 GMT James G said:

The down side is actually quite something that the Allies needed to learn to be honest. The US Army had a torrid time in Tunisia but it showed them what they needed to do to change. If they'd learnt that lesson in Sicily, they could have been thrown back into the sea whereas in Tunisia they could retreat.
The Germans and Italians did lose a lot of men in Tunisia who didn't fight in Sicily and could have, yes. However, if the French were able to stop the Germans getting in, and the British coming from Oran were able to get to them quick as planned (I'm thinking the landing sites remain the same but the French don't oppose the invasion), that would mean that Rommel's retreating army could have been stuck in Libya. There was the Mareth Line IIRC which was meant to stop an Italian invasion of Tunisia. My thinking was that that position could be held too.
Of course, other Axis troops who didn't come to North Africa would thus be in Sicily.

  Agreed.  The next main landing in Europe, which is likely to be Sicily could have some nasty shocks and possibly even be a bloody repulse.  In the short term there's likely to be more defenders in Sicily but the mopping up of the Africa Korp earlier could remove Rommel from play, which could make a difference in a later Normandy landing and speed up the time before the next allied attack.

[1bigrich]

Nov 22, 2019 18:50:21 GMT James G said:

The down side is actually quite something that the Allies needed to learn to be honest. 

There were other lessons besides the Army's.    

Watchtower and Torch taught combat loading of amphibious assault ships.   For example, ammunition is very dense, and conventional loading would dictate it goes into the hold first.    Tents on the other hand, are not very dense, and in conventional loading would be carried high in the hold or on deck.  Such loading provides the ship with stability.   Combat loading dictates loading in order of use/importance.    Ammunition is very important to the troops ashore, and likely to be needed first,.  So it is loaded last, higher up in the hold or on deck where it can be unloaded first.   Tents are not likely to be needed early an amphibious assault and get loaded deep in the hold, loaded first, unloaded last.   

The main reason the Marines on Guadalcanal called it "Operation Shoestring"  was the transports for Watchtower were NOT combat loaded.    When Fletcher (wisely) withdrew the carriers and Turner subsequently withdrew with the transports, the Marines were left without some necessities.  

As an aside, the P-40s that Ranger flew off for Torch had a large American flag painted on their sides next to the roundel, in an effort to reinforce to the Vichy these were American planes, and not Free French or British invaders.  See below.  



I think that's Agusta in the background with a shell splash from a shore battery in her wake

Regards,

[James G]

Feb 6, 2020 17:53:49 GMT 1bigrich said:

Nov 22, 2019 18:50:21 GMT James G said:

The down side is actually quite something that the Allies needed to learn to be honest. 

There were other lessons besides the Army's.    

Watchtower and Torch taught combat loading of amphibious assault ships.   For example, ammunition is very dense, and conventional loading would dictate it goes into the hold first.    Tents on the other hand, are not very dense, and in conventional loading would be carried high in the hold or on deck.  Such loading provides the ship with stability.   Combat loading dictates loading in order of use/importance.    Ammunition is very important to the troops ashore, and likely to be needed first,.  So it is loaded last, higher up in the hold or on deck where it can be unloaded first.   Tents are not likely to be needed early an amphibious assault and get loaded deep in the hold, loaded first, unloaded last.   

The main reason the Marines on Guadalcanal called it "Operation Shoestring"  was the transports for Watchtower were NOT combat loaded.    When Fletcher (wisely) withdrew the carriers and Turner subsequently withdrew with the transports, the Marines were left without some necessities.  

As an aside, the P-40s that Ranger flew off for Torch had a large American flag painted on their sides next to the roundel, in an effort to reinforce to the Vichy these were American planes, and not Free French or British invaders.  See below.  



I think that's Agusta in the background with a shell splash from a shore battery in her wake

Regards,

I've read before about how US ships going across the Atlantic in a WW3 scenario would be loaded - a mix of everything in each ship rather than all of one type of stores in one ship; if one goes down that means not all the MLRS rockets are lost for example - but I hadn't considered this with amphibious ships. Thanks for the information!