WI the Torch landings were further east per British preference, & North Africa cleared earlier?

[raharris1973]

WI the Torch landings were further east per British preference, & North Africa cleared earlier?

Stevep:
Historically Operation Torch was a compromise with the US insisting on landings on the Atlantic coastline of Morocco for fear that landings further east would possibly see the forces cut off if Hitler was able to persuade Franco to join the Axis and hence possibly close the Med to allied forces and supplies. This dragged the British landings westwards as well. Originally Britain wanted to land further east including IIRC in N Tunisia. This would have made it much more difficult for the Axis to occupy Tunisia so you could have seen most/all of FNA liberated while Rommel and his Italian allies were retreating from 2nd El Alamein. In that case you could have seen N Africa cleared a few months earlier. The down side of this would have been the POW haul would have been less as those German forces sent to occupy Tunisia OTL won't have gone along with similar air and logistical resources savings for then as well. Also the forces that landed in FNA wouldn't have had the battle experience they gained OTL and exposing some of the problems which could occur later in a more dangerous situation

What if the Americans relaxed their fears about a possible Spanish entry at this late date, and agreed to forego Atlantic/Morocco landings, and allowed the west, center, and east task forces, per the British preferences to cover all the Algerian ports and possibly Bizerte in Tunisia, putting the Allies in position to prevent Von Armin's Germans from occupying Tunisia, and trapping Rommel and the Italians in Libya?

I imagine Rommel and the Italians in Libya would be toast, except for any lucky evacuees, by Jan 1943, or Feb 1943, at a stretch. What do the Anglo-Americans do next? Invade Sicily in March or April 1943?

But is Sicily higher risk, with the Anglo-Americans facing Italian reinforcements plus Von Arnim's forces moved in and digging in and fortifying the island since November 9th 1942? Does giving a large joint Axis force time to prepare and fortify in Sicily instead of grinding it down and capturing it in Tunisia make it likely to repulse any Allied invasion? Or just make a Sicily campaign harder fought? Or lead to bypassing of Sicily to a Sardinia-Corsica approach to Italy?

[stevep]

Nov 2, 2022 15:55:06 GMT raharris1973 said:

WI the Torch landings were further east per British preference, & North Africa cleared earlier?

Stevep:
Historically Operation Torch was a compromise with the US insisting on landings on the Atlantic coastline of Morocco for fear that landings further east would possibly see the forces cut off if Hitler was able to persuade Franco to join the Axis and hence possibly close the Med to allied forces and supplies. This dragged the British landings westwards as well. Originally Britain wanted to land further east including IIRC in N Tunisia. This would have made it much more difficult for the Axis to occupy Tunisia so you could have seen most/all of FNA liberated while Rommel and his Italian allies were retreating from 2nd El Alamein. In that case you could have seen N Africa cleared a few months earlier. The down side of this would have been the POW haul would have been less as those German forces sent to occupy Tunisia OTL won't have gone along with similar air and logistical resources savings for then as well. Also the forces that landed in FNA wouldn't have had the battle experience they gained OTL and exposing some of the problems which could occur later in a more dangerous situation

What if the Americans relaxed their fears about a possible Spanish entry at this late date, and agreed to forego Atlantic/Morocco landings, and allowed the west, center, and east task forces, per the British preferences to cover all the Algerian ports and possibly Bizerte in Tunisia, putting the Allies in position to prevent Von Armin's Germans from occupying Tunisia, and trapping Rommel and the Italians in Libya?

I imagine Rommel and the Italians in Libya would be toast, except for any lucky evacuees, by Jan 1943, or Feb 1943, at a stretch. What do the Anglo-Americans do next? Invade Sicily in March or April 1943?

But is Sicily higher risk, with the Anglo-Americans facing Italian reinforcements plus Von Arnim's forces moved in and digging in and fortifying the island since November 9th 1942? Does giving a large joint Axis force time to prepare and fortify in Sicily instead of grinding it down and capturing it in Tunisia make it likely to repulse any Allied invasion? Or just make a Sicily campaign harder fought? Or lead to bypassing of Sicily to a Sardinia-Corsica approach to Italy?

  Its likely that the Axis forces already in N Africa would be captured virtually totally.  However as you say Sicily would probably be markedly more difficult because:

a)  The allied forces would lack the experience of such landings and of combat so a lot would be green.

b)  Its pretty certain that Sicily would be more heavily defended and possibly a lot more so.

  The other issue is that the Torch landings and resultant defeat of the Axis occurred at pretty much the same time as the Soviet attacks that destroyed 6th Army and the German position in the southern USSR.  TTL a lot of the forces that went to N Africa could end up in southern Russian/Ukraine instead.  How this changes the balance of the war there would have to be considered.  It might not necessarily be to the Axis advantage as we have Hitler to consider.  He didn't even want a withdrawal from Stalingrad - von Manstein's attempted relief operation was not in Hitler's mind anyway to enable the force to escape but to hold that position!  As such the fighting in the region during the period Nov 42 to spring 43 is going to be bloodier on both sides.  The front line is likely to end up somewhere further east but how the war from then on goes could be anyone's guess.

[raharris1973]

Nov 2, 2022 17:08:38 GMT stevep said:

  Its likely that the Axis forces already in N Africa would be captured virtually totally.  However as you say Sicily would probably be markedly more difficult because:

a)  The allied forces would lack the experience of such landings and of combat so a lot would be green.

b)  Its pretty certain that Sicily would be more heavily defended and possibly a lot more so.

  The other issue is that the Torch landings and resultant defeat of the Axis occurred at pretty much the same time as the Soviet attacks that destroyed 6th Army and the German position in the southern USSR.  TTL a lot of the forces that went to N Africa could end up in southern Russian/Ukraine instead.  How this changes the balance of the war there would have to be considered.  It might not necessarily be to the Axis advantage as we have Hitler to consider.  He didn't even want a withdrawal from Stalingrad - von Manstein's attempted relief operation was not in Hitler's mind anyway to enable the force to escape but to hold that position!  As such the fighting in the region during the period Nov 42 to spring 43 is going to be bloodier on both sides.  The front line is likely to end up somewhere further east but how the war from then on goes could be anyone's guess.

Well, the the forces that went to N. Africa could end up in southern Russia/Ukraine OR augmenting Sicily, OR split between the two. They can't be at full-strength in both places . So where do the Germans/Axis get their manpower/AirPower boost? Russia or Sicily? Or split the baby?

[stevep]

Nov 2, 2022 19:33:16 GMT raharris1973 said:

Nov 2, 2022 17:08:38 GMT stevep said:

  Its likely that the Axis forces already in N Africa would be captured virtually totally.  However as you say Sicily would probably be markedly more difficult because:

a)  The allied forces would lack the experience of such landings and of combat so a lot would be green.

b)  Its pretty certain that Sicily would be more heavily defended and possibly a lot more so.

  The other issue is that the Torch landings and resultant defeat of the Axis occurred at pretty much the same time as the Soviet attacks that destroyed 6th Army and the German position in the southern USSR.  TTL a lot of the forces that went to N Africa could end up in southern Russian/Ukraine instead.  How this changes the balance of the war there would have to be considered.  It might not necessarily be to the Axis advantage as we have Hitler to consider.  He didn't even want a withdrawal from Stalingrad - von Manstein's attempted relief operation was not in Hitler's mind anyway to enable the force to escape but to hold that position!  As such the fighting in the region during the period Nov 42 to spring 43 is going to be bloodier on both sides.  The front line is likely to end up somewhere further east but how the war from then on goes could be anyone's guess.

Well, the the forces that went to N. Africa could end up in southern Russia/Ukraine OR augmenting Sicily, OR split between the two. They can't be at full-strength in both places . So where do the Germans/Axis get their manpower/AirPower boost? Russia or Sicily? Or split the baby?

  Well since Russia is seen as the decisive battle, there is a massive crisis there with the isolation of the 6th Army and this is occurring prior to any allied invasion of Sicily as it would take time to mop up N Africa and then prepare for invasion I think the majority are likely to end up in the east.

[American hist]

It was the concern in Sicily that Italians would fight harder for their homeland instead they surrendered in droves. Perhaps things could be different in this pod where the Italians fight harder.

What if the British got to choose their area of landing and the Americans also picked their invasion route? I guess the airborne could have played a more significant role in the actual history.

[stevep]

Nov 4, 2022 2:19:27 GMT American hist said:

It was the concern in Sicily that Italians would fight harder for their homeland instead they surrendered in droves. Perhaps things could be different in this pod where the Italians fight harder.

What if the British got to choose their area of landing and the Americans also picked their invasion route? I guess the airborne could have played a more significant role in the actual history.

  Sorry are you talking about invading FNA or Sicily here?  The 1st paragraph would suggest Sicily but the reference to Britain choosing landing areas makes me think FNA.  If FNA then I can't see paras playing any significant role as other than Gibraltar and Malta the allies simply don't have any territory within range and Malta is under considerable pressure so establishing a para base there - as well as possibly warning the Axis what is coming - I'm not sure they could do much.

  Similarly what do you mean by the Americans choosing their invasion route?  Do you mean they still land largely in the west while Britain lands in the east and there is a large gap between the two areas?  Or something after the liberation of FNA.

[American hist]

Nov 4, 2022 15:01:00 GMT stevep said:

Nov 4, 2022 2:19:27 GMT American hist said:

It was the concern in Sicily that Italians would fight harder for their homeland instead they surrendered in droves. Perhaps things could be different in this pod where the Italians fight harder.

What if the British got to choose their area of landing and the Americans also picked their invasion route? I guess the airborne could have played a more significant role in the actual history.

  Sorry are you talking about invading FNA or Sicily here?  The 1st paragraph would suggest Sicily but the reference to Britain choosing landing areas makes me think FNA.  If FNA then I can't see paras playing any significant role as other than Gibraltar and Malta the allies simply don't have any territory within range and Malta is under considerable pressure so establishing a para base there - as well as possibly warning the Axis what is coming - I'm not sure they could do much.

  Similarly what do you mean by the Americans choosing their invasion route?  Do you mean they still land largely in the west while Britain lands in the east and there is a large gap between the two areas?  Or something after the liberation of FNA.

I mean the British can invade their way and they British pick their area of preference to land or invade. If there isn’t enough troops could Britain order all commonwealth nations available like Canada,Africa, and the Caribbean to accompany where they are needed ? The Caribbean soldiers didn’t see action during World War II but they were deployed to Europe.

[stevep]

Nov 4, 2022 15:31:48 GMT American hist said:

Nov 4, 2022 15:01:00 GMT stevep said:

  Sorry are you talking about invading FNA or Sicily here?  The 1st paragraph would suggest Sicily but the reference to Britain choosing landing areas makes me think FNA.  If FNA then I can't see paras playing any significant role as other than Gibraltar and Malta the allies simply don't have any territory within range and Malta is under considerable pressure so establishing a para base there - as well as possibly warning the Axis what is coming - I'm not sure they could do much.

  Similarly what do you mean by the Americans choosing their invasion route?  Do you mean they still land largely in the west while Britain lands in the east and there is a large gap between the two areas?  Or something after the liberation of FNA.

I mean the British can invade their way and they British pick their area of preference to land or invade. If there isn’t enough troops could Britain order all commonwealth nations available like Canada,Africa, and the Caribbean to accompany where they are needed ? The Caribbean soldiers didn’t see action during World War II but they were deployed to Europe.

  Ah sounds like you are talking about FNA and the two nations playing totally separate games.  This does have some issues as neither can support each other and both rely on resources the other has, both materially and in knowledge/experience.  Plus if their going their separate ways then that loses most of the advantages of an alliance.

[raunchel]

I don't see the Italians fighting harder if they've gotten rolled up more quickly in North Africa. Italian troops just weren't dedicated to the war like that and were badly underarmed for this kind of war.

If North Africa is lost faster, I could see the Germans moving the troops that originally went to reinforce there to Russia instead. Hitler could certainly come around to the idea of Italy being much harder to land on and the troops at hand being enough to hold Sicily. Those troops won't make a fundamental difference in the east but it would add to the bloodshed there.

This alternate Torch naturally removes the Afrika Corps from the equation but one interesting thing that might happen there is senior figures like Rommel failing to escape leading to either death in battle (which won't change much) of capture. The latter would probably completely change his later rehabilitation in the public eye because he's not dead and his crimes and Nazi association would actually be brought up.

[American hist]

Well what if both landings had troops, from each allied faction? The British could have allowed their Caribbean regiments to see action. The commonwealth probably could have afforded to land more troops, especially from India. I'm not a word war two experts.

[stevep]

Nov 23, 2022 22:05:37 GMT American hist said:

Well what if both landings had troops, from each allied faction? The British could have allowed their Caribbean regiments to see action. The commonwealth probably could have afforded to land more troops, especially from India. I'm not a word war two experts.

  I think if your talking about markedly larger forces that there would be issues with shipping and also escorts for protecting them.  At this point the USN has recently defeated the IJN at Midway and is starting to get heavily involved in a bloody battle for the Solomon's.  Similarly the Battle of the Atlantic - the most important one of all for the western allies was still at its height.  Getting additional shipping and escorts from those battles would be very difficult especially since significant parts of the American establishment didn't want to be involved in the Med at all.

[American hist]

Nov 24, 2022 16:40:33 GMT stevep said:

Nov 23, 2022 22:05:37 GMT American hist said:

Well what if both landings had troops, from each allied faction? The British could have allowed their Caribbean regiments to see action. The commonwealth probably could have afforded to land more troops, especially from India. I'm not a word war two experts.

  I think if your talking about markedly larger forces that there would be issues with shipping and also escorts for protecting them.  At this point the USN has recently defeated the IJN at Midway and is starting to get heavily involved in a bloody battle for the Solomon's.  Similarly the Battle of the Atlantic - the most important one of all for the western allies was still at its height.  Getting additional shipping and escorts from those battles would be very difficult especially since significant parts of the American establishment didn't want to be involved in the Med at all.

Thanks ! However while you speak fact the British navy famously had the world's longest traditionally large navy and was still a Colossians force to be reckoned with and a joint allied naval fleet surly could be utilized. Could the Allie’s have taken Africa,but forgoes on being dragged in Italy? It would be cool though not very logical if US Marines regiments where is Saint North Africa and later sent to the Pacific the same could go with army regiments. However they’re up and no US Army units who where deployed to fight the Japanese and the Germans

[stevep]

Nov 25, 2022 4:19:57 GMT American hist said:

Nov 24, 2022 16:40:33 GMT stevep said:

  I think if your talking about markedly larger forces that there would be issues with shipping and also escorts for protecting them.  At this point the USN has recently defeated the IJN at Midway and is starting to get heavily involved in a bloody battle for the Solomon's.  Similarly the Battle of the Atlantic - the most important one of all for the western allies was still at its height.  Getting additional shipping and escorts from those battles would be very difficult especially since significant parts of the American establishment didn't want to be involved in the Med at all.

Thanks ! However while you speak fact the British navy famously had the world's longest traditionally large navy and was still a Colossians force to be reckoned with and a joint allied naval fleet surly could be utilized. Could the Allie’s have taken Africa,but forgoes on being dragged in Italy? It would be cool though not very logical if US Marines regiments where is Saint North Africa and later sent to the Pacific the same could go with army regiments. However they’re up and no US Army units who where deployed to fight the Japanese and the Germans

  Britain still had a considerable navy at the time but had already suffered heavy losses in 3 years of war and the USN was definitely more powerful in most areas by late 1942.  Also the RN was busy in many areas, from the Arctic [Murmansk convoys] via the vital Atlantic battles - the Med [where Axis domination of the central Med meant we needed two separate fleets [in Gibraltar and Alexandria] to the India Ocean. Also the USN especially for political reasons including the loss of US controlled territory and wanting revenge for Pearl Harbour was heavily committed to making their primary operations - t least offensive ones - against Japan. 

  Plus the idea of mixed forces in both landing areas has the potential for confusion with different doctrines and sets of equipment inside the two armies.  Given that there was relatively little experience with potentially opposed landings and the existing concerns about secure of landing so far east I doubt that the US army, who were rather reluctant about the operation anyway would have agree to any contribution to landings as far east as Tunisia which is really what was required.

  I would say that the landings and then the follow up operation into Sicily, Sardinia and the Italian mainland were very useful for the allies.  They freed up the substantial British/allied forces already in N Africa along with the substantial burden of supplying them around Africa and also allowed limited passage through the Med.  Also removing Italy from the Axis meant that its fleet was removed as a threat and Germany needed to replace Italian forces in Russia and the Balkans.  Arguably in hindsight after the occupation of southern Italy and especially the airfields around Foggia and having secured Sardinia the allies could have gone on the defensive, tying down German forces in Italy and using air and ground attacks into the Balkans.  Getting a position in the latter and especially being able to reach the Danube would have greatly weakened the Axis for probably minimal allied losses.  If the US had still been committed to a frontal attack on Germany via N France that could still have been done as OTL but against a weaker Germany.

[raharris1973]

Nov 25, 2022 11:22:34 GMT stevep said:

Arguably in hindsight after the occupation of southern Italy and especially the airfields around Foggia and having secured Sardinia the allies could have gone on the defensive, tying down German forces in Italy and using air and ground attacks into the Balkans.  Getting a position in the latter and especially being able to reach the Danube would have greatly weakened the Axis for probably minimal allied losses. 

Why in particular would a set of alternate landings and follow on attacks in the Balkans aimed toward the Danube be easier to do than the operations that were undertaken in OTL central and northern Italy from post-Foggia (so Nov 1943) till summer 1945? A lot of people at the other place are really insistent the terrain in the Balkans is just as rough as Italy, with the ports being worse and the politics being even messier.

[stevep]

Nov 25, 2022 18:51:16 GMT raharris1973 said:

Nov 25, 2022 11:22:34 GMT stevep said:

Arguably in hindsight after the occupation of southern Italy and especially the airfields around Foggia and having secured Sardinia the allies could have gone on the defensive, tying down German forces in Italy and using air and ground attacks into the Balkans.  Getting a position in the latter and especially being able to reach the Danube would have greatly weakened the Axis for probably minimal allied losses. 

Why in particular would a set of alternate landings and follow on attacks in the Balkans aimed toward the Danube be easier to do than the operations that were undertaken in OTL central and northern Italy from post-Foggia (so Nov 1943) till summer 1945? A lot of people at the other place are really insistent the terrain in the Balkans is just as rough as Italy, with the ports being worse and the politics being even messier.

  Its just as rough  as Italy but once you get off the landing zone its wider so more opportunities to overstretch the defenders.  Especially with them having to maintain forces in an increasingly hostile Italy and a good chance that at least some of the Axis allies in the region would flip.  You have active guerilla forces in Greece and Yugoslavia and even with the communists in the latter their likely to be willing to work with the western powers to get rid of the Germans.

  Possibly even more importantly the entire region south from the Hungarian plains has relatively limited infrastructure, especially in terms of railways.  That limits the allied advance but as importantly its markedly more difficult for the Germans to reinforce and supply their forces in the south, even without allied air power hammering what transport facilities they have in the area.  Its a lot easier for Germany to ship forces between the eastern front and say one in N France or even Italy with its [relative to the Balkans] more developed railway net work. 

  As such it should be possible to reach the lower Danube at least and that means

a)  That part of the river, an important transport link is closed to the Axis.

b)  The vital oil supplies at Polesti will be shut down at such a close range.

c)  It opens up a supply route to the Soviets via the Med and Black Sea - albeit it might need some pressure on Turkey, which would be far more capable than the Arctic or Iran route and isn't dependent on the capacity of the Trans-Siberian railway as the Pacific route was.

d)  You might also see Romania flip to the allies to avoid falling under Soviet control.

  This could still be followed up by a landing in N France in 1944 but against a far weaker Germany.