What if we ignored N. Africa and the MTO?

In article , gme6
@cornell.edu says...
(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

What then? The war in central Europe (ETO) could have gotten our
full resouces, D Day would have been a year earlier and the war
would have been over a lot sooner, German troops in No. Africa and
the MTO would have simply been isolated and would died on the vine.
Why not?

To just list what I see as some reasons (In no particular order):

Lack of experience: The invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, and
Anzio were learning experiences for the Allies. There would have likely
been a lot of mistakes made without them.

Perhaps a better plan might have been rather then fight a war in North
Africa do a direct invasion of Sicily from Egypt.

As it was North Africa costs the Axis dearly. IIRC about 25% of axis
strength.



U-boats: The U-boat menace wasn't really under control until mid 1943.
This would have added extra difficulties in supplying a large army in
mainland Europe (this is one of the reasons that the destruction of the
German airforce didn't really get started till 1944).

Aircraft: In 1943 the German airforce was more intact than in 1944.
The Allies would have been dealing with a significantly stronger
Luftwaffe while at the same time lacking some of their better aircraft.

Italy (and MTO operations in general): Knocking Italy out of the war
was worth a lot to the Allies, both on land and at sea. Germany was
forced to devote units to Italy that could have been used elsewhere
(like repelling an allied landing), and British navel assets were able
to devote their energies to tasks other than trying to counter Italian
and German ships (a task which tied up several British capital ships
for most of the early war). Isolating the Germans in North Africa would
have taken a lot of material, and would have been very difficult. An
in-the-war Italy and the need to contest the Germans in the MTO would
have still been a big equipment sink (definitely bigger than the
Italian sideshow in 1944 was).

As it was in 1944, Italy diverted almost a million German troops from
more important fronts. It cost the Allies almost as much but they could
afford it.



Lack of specialized equipment: The Allies had a lot of specialized
equipment that played an important part in the D-Day operations. An
invasion in 1943 would have most likely lacked things like enough
specialized landing craft, the more interesting supply solutions, and
specialized tanks.


Not as much as you would think. The invasion of Sicily involved more
landing crafts then D-Day.


--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a370ac351885d1d989763@news...
In article , gme6


Perhaps a better plan might have been rather then fight a war in North
Africa do a direct invasion of Sicily from Egypt.


Look at a map, without control of Algeria, Tunisia and Libya your invasion
convoy will have to go round the Cape through the Suez Canal and then fight
its way through an area where the axis have air bases on both sides of the
Med


As it was North Africa costs the Axis dearly. IIRC about 25% of axis
strength.


Hardly a compelling argument for not fighting them there then.



U-boats: The U-boat menace wasn't really under control until mid 1943.
This would have added extra difficulties in supplying a large army in
mainland Europe (this is one of the reasons that the destruction of the
German airforce didn't really get started till 1944).

Aircraft: In 1943 the German airforce was more intact than in 1944.
The Allies would have been dealing with a significantly stronger
Luftwaffe while at the same time lacking some of their better aircraft.

Italy (and MTO operations in general): Knocking Italy out of the war
was worth a lot to the Allies, both on land and at sea. Germany was
forced to devote units to Italy that could have been used elsewhere
(like repelling an allied landing), and British navel assets were able
to devote their energies to tasks other than trying to counter Italian
and German ships (a task which tied up several British capital ships
for most of the early war). Isolating the Germans in North Africa would
have taken a lot of material, and would have been very difficult. An
in-the-war Italy and the need to contest the Germans in the MTO would
have still been a big equipment sink (definitely bigger than the
Italian sideshow in 1944 was).

As it was in 1944, Italy diverted almost a million German troops from
more important fronts. It cost the Allies almost as much but they could
afford it.



Lack of specialized equipment: The Allies had a lot of specialized
equipment that played an important part in the D-Day operations. An
invasion in 1943 would have most likely lacked things like enough
specialized landing craft, the more interesting supply solutions, and
specialized tanks.


Not as much as you would think. The invasion of Sicily involved more
landing crafts then D-Day.


Operation Husky involved around 3000 ships and landing craft while
overlord utilised in excess of 5000. While both invasions involved a
similar size assault force, 3 Commonwealth and 2 US divisions the rate
of reinforcement in subsequent waves was much higher in Normand
which in part was a result of the lessons learned in Sicily.

Keith

In article ,
says...

Perhaps a better plan might have been rather then fight a war in North
Africa do a direct invasion of Sicily from Egypt.


Look at a map, without control of Algeria, Tunisia and Libya your invasion
convoy will have to go round the Cape through the Suez Canal and then fight

You probably find that more then enough supplies came as almost all
supplies to the army in Egypt came that way anyway.


its way through an area where the axis have air bases on both sides of the
Med

Point taken. They probably could have done it but it is risky.


As it was North Africa costs the Axis dearly. IIRC about 25% of axis
strength.


Hardly a compelling argument for not fighting them there then.

It is as long as Russia held! From the US and Britain point of view,
they needed the war as they showed the world that while Russia was
losing so much that they were fighting too. It also enabled them to
learn as others have pointed out.

I would argue from Axis view the whole war in North Africa was an
expensive waste. A best all he could do was win in the Suez for awhile.
Which the Allies could and did get on without it.

As a result large numbers of German troops and air force were uselessly
stuck at the end of a long supply line carrying large numbers of useless
Italians soldiers.

The effect in some parts of the German military was quite dramatic for
example large numbers of German transport planes were diverted and lost
over North Africa at a time when they were badly needed in Russia.

Apparently Hitler originally wanted to defend only a small part of
Africa, that is what he should have done.


--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a375818f316f17f989769@news...
In article ,
says...

Perhaps a better plan might have been rather then fight a war in North
Africa do a direct invasion of Sicily from Egypt.


Look at a map, without control of Algeria, Tunisia and Libya your
invasion
convoy will have to go round the Cape through the Suez Canal and then
fight

You probably find that more then enough supplies came as almost all
supplies to the army in Egypt came that way anyway.


For the British eighth army that's certainly true but the Torch convoys
sailed from the US and Britain. The Sicily invasion force staged
out of the North African ports


its way through an area where the axis have air bases on both sides of
the
Med

Point taken. They probably could have done it but it is risky.


As it was North Africa costs the Axis dearly. IIRC about 25% of axis
strength.


Hardly a compelling argument for not fighting them there then.

It is as long as Russia held! From the US and Britain point of view,
they needed the war as they showed the world that while Russia was
losing so much that they were fighting too. It also enabled them to
learn as others have pointed out.


They also needed to hold the Middle East oil fields and
Suez canal. Allowing the Germans to seize those would
have altered the whole strategic balance. A third Reich
with unlimited oil supplies doesn't bear thinking about.

I would argue from Axis view the whole war in North Africa was an
expensive waste. A best all he could do was win in the Suez for awhile.
Which the Allies could and did get on without it.


This was true of much of the Axis war strategy. The capture of Norway
and Denmark were pyhricc victories as they tied down 20 or more
German divisions to hold down nations that had been effectively giving
them everything they wanted anyway.

As a result large numbers of German troops and air force were uselessly
stuck at the end of a long supply line carrying large numbers of useless
Italians soldiers.


Which was bad for them and good for the allies.

The effect in some parts of the German military was quite dramatic for
example large numbers of German transport planes were diverted and lost
over North Africa at a time when they were badly needed in Russia.

Apparently Hitler originally wanted to defend only a small part of
Africa, that is what he should have done.


This was an impractical proposition however. Sooner or later the
allies were going to assemble a large force and push them out.

Keith

In article ,
says...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a375818f316f17f989769@news...
In article ,
says...

Perhaps a better plan might have been rather then fight a war in North
Africa do a direct invasion of Sicily from Egypt.


Look at a map, without control of Algeria, Tunisia and Libya your
invasion
convoy will have to go round the Cape through the Suez Canal and then
fight

You probably find that more then enough supplies came as almost all
supplies to the army in Egypt came that way anyway.


For the British eighth army that's certainly true but the Torch convoys
sailed from the US and Britain.
The Sicily invasion force staged out of the North African ports

Torch were dependent on British forces for the majority contribution.
I think you will find that almost all supplies went though the Suez
until very late in the war.



its way through an area where the axis have air bases on both sides of
the
Med

Point taken. They probably could have done it but it is risky.


As it was North Africa costs the Axis dearly. IIRC about 25% of axis
strength.


Hardly a compelling argument for not fighting them there then.

It is as long as Russia held! From the US and Britain point of view,
they needed the war as they showed the world that while Russia was
losing so much that they were fighting too. It also enabled them to
learn as others have pointed out.


They also needed to hold the Middle East oil fields and
Suez canal. Allowing the Germans to seize those would
have altered the whole strategic balance. A third Reich
with unlimited oil supplies doesn't bear thinking about.

What Middle Eastern oil fields in the early 1940s in the Middle East?
Probably Egypt is Hitler best bet but its not much.

The Gulf is a long way away from Egypt. If Hitler could not get the
adequate supplies to Egypt, I cannot see him making the Gulf.

But even if he did make it, the Gulf oil fields there were just starting
up. IIRC Gulf oil production was very small about 40,000 barrels per
day. I doubt they would get that as the British had established plans in
place to make sure that they were destroyed if the Germans came. It
would be like what the Japanese in the Pacific or the Germans in Russia
found when the captured the oil fields, they had been destroyed already.

No way the mid-east could have been developed quickly enough to meet the
oil needs even the most desperate powers of the time.

Worst case for the Allies, Hitler has a whole lot more borders to
defend.




I would argue from Axis view the whole war in North Africa was an
expensive waste. A best all he could do was win in the Suez for awhile.
Which the Allies could and did get on without it.


This was true of much of the Axis war strategy. The capture of Norway
and Denmark were pyhricc victories as they tied down 20 or more
German divisions to hold down nations that had been effectively giving
them everything they wanted anyway.

As a result large numbers of German troops and air force were uselessly
stuck at the end of a long supply line carrying large numbers of useless
Italians soldiers.


Which was bad for them and good for the allies.

The effect in some parts of the German military was quite dramatic for
example large numbers of German transport planes were diverted and lost
over North Africa at a time when they were badly needed in Russia.

Apparently Hitler originally wanted to defend only a small part of
Africa, that is what he should have done.


This was an impractical proposition however. Sooner or later the
allies were going to assemble a large force and push them out.

Agreed no matter what strategy Hitler used. After Hitler declared war on
the US and found himself at war with Britain, Russia and the US, it was
just a matter of time.


--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a38909ef387a918989772@news...
In article ,
says...



For the British eighth army that's certainly true but the Torch convoys
sailed from the US and Britain.
The Sicily invasion force staged out of the North African ports

Torch were dependent on British forces for the majority contribution.
I think you will find that almost all supplies went though the Suez
until very late in the war.


The Torch convoys entered the med via Gibraltar
http://www.combinedops.com/Torch.htm

You are incorrect with regard to the routing of supplies for the
Torch landing and suubsequent operations.





its way through an area where the axis have air bases on both sides
of
the
Med

Point taken. They probably could have done it but it is risky.


As it was North Africa costs the Axis dearly. IIRC about 25% of
axis
strength.


Hardly a compelling argument for not fighting them there then.

It is as long as Russia held! From the US and Britain point of view,
they needed the war as they showed the world that while Russia was
losing so much that they were fighting too. It also enabled them to
learn as others have pointed out.


They also needed to hold the Middle East oil fields and
Suez canal. Allowing the Germans to seize those would
have altered the whole strategic balance. A third Reich
with unlimited oil supplies doesn't bear thinking about.

What Middle Eastern oil fields in the early 1940s in the Middle East?

The ones in Iraq and Iran that were suppling Britain with
a lot of its oil, the first Iranian reserves came on line
before WW1 and the Iraqi ones during the 20's

Probably Egypt is Hitler best bet but its not much.

The Gulf is a long way away from Egypt. If Hitler could not get the
adequate supplies to Egypt, I cannot see him making the Gulf.


The fields in the ME supplied the British forces in Egypt rather effectively

But even if he did make it, the Gulf oil fields there were just starting
up. IIRC Gulf oil production was very small about 40,000 barrels per
day. I doubt they would get that as the British had established plans in
place to make sure that they were destroyed if the Germans came. It
would be like what the Japanese in the Pacific or the Germans in Russia
found when the captured the oil fields, they had been destroyed already.


You are fixated on the Gulf. The Northern Iraqi fields went into production
in the 1920's and their was a pipeline to Haifa on the med. The British
force
that suppressed the German fomented Iraqi coup during WW2 travelled
from Palestine to Iraq along the pipeline road.

No way the mid-east could have been developed quickly enough to meet the
oil needs even the most desperate powers of the time.


It was already developed, US companies , BP, Shell, and Compagnie Française
Pëtrole
began operations in Iraq in 1928

Worst case for the Allies, Hitler has a whole lot more borders to
defend.


And a lot of oil




I would argue from Axis view the whole war in North Africa was an
expensive waste. A best all he could do was win in the Suez for
awhile.
Which the Allies could and did get on without it.


This was true of much of the Axis war strategy. The capture of Norway
and Denmark were pyhricc victories as they tied down 20 or more
German divisions to hold down nations that had been effectively giving
them everything they wanted anyway.

As a result large numbers of German troops and air force were
uselessly
stuck at the end of a long supply line carrying large numbers of
useless
Italians soldiers.


Which was bad for them and good for the allies.

The effect in some parts of the German military was quite dramatic for
example large numbers of German transport planes were diverted and
lost
over North Africa at a time when they were badly needed in Russia.

Apparently Hitler originally wanted to defend only a small part of
Africa, that is what he should have done.


This was an impractical proposition however. Sooner or later the
allies were going to assemble a large force and push them out.

Agreed no matter what strategy Hitler used. After Hitler declared war on
the US and found himself at war with Britain, Russia and the US, it was
just a matter of time.



After Germany invaded Russia it was just a matter of time before
the red army appeared on the horizon.

Keith

In article ,=20
says...
=20
"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a38909ef387a918989772@news...
In article ,
says...

=20

For the British eighth army that's certainly true but the Torch convo=
ys
sailed from the US and Britain.
The Sicily invasion force staged out of the North African ports

Torch were dependent on British forces for the majority contribution.
I think you will find that almost all supplies went though the Suez
until very late in the war.

=20
The Torch convoys entered the med via Gibraltar
http://www.combinedops.com/Torch.htm

Yes. The exception that proves the rule. It was too dangerous for a=20
regular supply convoy. Only very important convoys went though that=20
route. I repeat almost all supplies went to the British Eight army and=20
that was around the cape though the Suez. Cost a lot in shipping to go=20
that long route.


=20
You are incorrect with regard to the routing of supplies for the
Torch landing and suubsequent operations.

I never said anything about subsequent.=20
=20
=20


its way through an area where the axis have air bases on both si=
des
of
the
Med

Point taken. They probably could have done it but it is risky.


As it was North Africa costs the Axis dearly. IIRC about 25% of
axis
strength.


Hardly a compelling argument for not fighting them there then.

It is as long as Russia held! From the US and Britain point of view=
,
they needed the war as they showed the world that while Russia was
losing so much that they were fighting too. It also enabled them to
learn as others have pointed out.


They also needed to hold the Middle East oil fields and
Suez canal. Allowing the Germans to seize those would
have altered the whole strategic balance. A third Reich
with unlimited oil supplies doesn't bear thinking about.

What Middle Eastern oil fields in the early 1940s in the Middle East?
=20
The ones in Iraq and Iran that were suppling Britain with
a lot of its oil, the first Iranian reserves came on line
before WW1 and the Iraqi ones during the 20's

Never denied that either.

=20
Probably Egypt is Hitler best bet but its not much.

The Gulf is a long way away from Egypt. If Hitler could not get the
adequate supplies to Egypt, I cannot see him making the Gulf.

=20
The fields in the ME supplied the British forces in Egypt rather effectiv=
ely
=20
But even if he did make it, the Gulf oil fields there were just startin=
g
up. IIRC Gulf oil production was very small about 40,000 barrels per
day. I doubt they would get that as the British had established plans i=
n
place to make sure that they were destroyed if the Germans came. It
would be like what the Japanese in the Pacific or the Germans in Russia
found when the captured the oil fields, they had been destroyed already=
..

=20
You are fixated on the Gulf. The Northern Iraqi fields went into producti=
on
in the 1920's and their was a pipeline to Haifa on the med. The British
force
that suppressed the German fomented Iraqi coup during WW2 travelled
from Palestine to Iraq along the pipeline road.
=20
No way the mid-east could have been developed quickly enough to meet th=
e
oil needs even the most desperate powers of the time.

=20
It was already developed, US companies , BP, Shell, and Compagnie Fran=E7=
aise
P=EBtrole
began operations in Iraq in 1928
=20
Worst case for the Allies, Hitler has a whole lot more borders to
defend.

=20
And a lot of oil

I hope this table comes out they rarely do on the usenet. It comes out=20
of a discussion I had awhile ago on a similar subject

Here are some crude oil production figures for 1945=20
Source: American Petroleum Institute, Petroleum Facts & Figures 1959=20

........................Crude Oil
........................Production
Country..................(thousand barrels/day)

United States................66%
Mexico........................1.7%
Venezuela.....................12.5%
Russia/USSR..................5.7%
Rumania......................1.3% =20
East Indies..................0.3%
Persia/Iran..................5.0%
All Others...................7.1%

The significant oil fields in the region is in Iran which is a lot=20
further still.=20

[Notes Rumania is very low because of the destruction in the war]

If Hitler could not make it to the canal, he ain't going to make it to=20
Iran. If he did make it to Iran, the British would make sure that there=20
would be that there would be so much damage to the oil fields and the=20
pipelines that it will be a long time before the fields would be of any=20
use.=20

Hitler took an oil field in Russia too never got a drop out of it. The=20
Japanese took some in the Pacific and got very little out of it too.

=20



I would argue from Axis view the whole war in North Africa was an
expensive waste. A best all he could do was win in the Suez for
awhile.
Which the Allies could and did get on without it.


This was true of much of the Axis war strategy. The capture of Norway
and Denmark were pyhricc victories as they tied down 20 or more
German divisions to hold down nations that had been effectively givin=
g
them everything they wanted anyway.

As a result large numbers of German troops and air force were
uselessly
stuck at the end of a long supply line carrying large numbers of
useless
Italians soldiers.


Which was bad for them and good for the allies.

The effect in some parts of the German military was quite dramatic =
for
example large numbers of German transport planes were diverted and
lost
over North Africa at a time when they were badly needed in Russia.

Apparently Hitler originally wanted to defend only a small part of
Africa, that is what he should have done.


This was an impractical proposition however. Sooner or later the
allies were going to assemble a large force and push them out.

Agreed no matter what strategy Hitler used. After Hitler declared war o=
n
the US and found himself at war with Britain, Russia and the US, it was
just a matter of time.


=20
After Germany invaded Russia it was just a matter of time before
the red army appeared on the horizon.

I really am unsure about this.

It *might* be possible for Hitler to win the East. Say an early German=20
assault on Leningrad and then once it falls, a very risky direct assault=20
on Moscow and pray that the Russian army on his flanks in Kiev don't do=20
him much damage.=20

In any case whether Britain and Russia together could have defeated=20
Germany without the US is debatable. But it is hard to see how the US=20
could have stayed out. In any case with all three Britain, US and=20
Russia, it was only a matter of time before Hitler was finished.



After the failure of Moscow, I agree.=20


--=20
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:15:25 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:



They also needed to hold the Middle East oil fields and
Suez canal. Allowing the Germans to seize those would
have altered the whole strategic balance. A third Reich
with unlimited oil supplies doesn't bear thinking about.

By the time Third Reich would be able to bring these wells into the
production (repairment, building of tanker fleet), it would have been
too late. Americans would be in fight for real.


This was true of much of the Axis war strategy. The capture of Norway
and Denmark were pyhricc victories as they tied down 20 or more
German divisions to hold down nations that had been effectively giving
them everything they wanted anyway.

If it weren't for German invasion of Norway, British were going to
land sometime in Spring 1940. Germans could not allow for Britain to
sit in Narvik. Troops deployed in Norway were not first class anyway,
most of them were either coast defense troops or 7xx class divisions.
Fighting troops deployed in Norway took part in the war against Soviet
Union.


Drax

As a result large numbers of German troops and air force were uselessly
stuck at the end of a long supply line carrying large numbers of useless
Italians soldiers.

Not entirely useless. At Tunis, the Italians were still fighting the
day after the Germans surrendered.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Bernardz writes:

In article ,
says...
As a result large numbers of German troops and air force were uselessly
stuck at the end of a long supply line carrying large numbers of useless
Italians soldiers.

Oops, you've not read the better books then, have you? Ach, I'll leave
it to Keith to disembowel you. I don't advise you try this on the
sci.military.naval group :-)

The effect in some parts of the German military was quite dramatic for
example large numbers of German transport planes were diverted and lost
over North Africa at a time when they were badly needed in Russia.

That is a good point, but hardly subtle. The Germans and everybody
else always had too few of these.

Apparently Hitler originally wanted to defend only a small part of
Africa, that is what he should have done.

What you say above is in contradiction to this. He should have left
Africa completely. But hey, that's not what an alliance is about. If
you want to keep it, that is.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan