What if we ignored N. Africa and the MTO?

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?

Regards,







Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 01 Dec 2003 14:08:09 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

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?


Two words.


Suez Canal.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress = Use google to figure it out.
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On 01 Dec 2003 14:08:09 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

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?


There is a real question of whether we had the ability to launch any
invasion of Europe in 1943, let alone sucessfully. Our costly
"learning experiences" in Tunisia do raise the question of how ready
the US was to take on the Wehrmacht.

Later on, a lot of German troops were tied up in the MTO keeping us
tied up in the MTO. Interesting question who came out ahead there...

SCO delenda est.
adress is partially sdrawkcab.

There is a real question of whether we had the ability to launch any
invasion of Europe in 1943, let alone sucessfully. Our costly
"learning experiences" in Tunisia do raise the question of how ready
the US was to take on the Wehrmacht.

If the Allies (not just the U.S.) had landed in France in November
1942, they would have been massacred.

The U.S. Army at the Battle of Kasserine Pass in February 1943 was
indeed no match for the German army (properly called the Heer, not the
Wehrmacht). It was a fairly inexpensive graduate course in the
realities of combat. The USAAF, however, fared very well in comparison
to the Luftwaffe. And the USN was streets ahead of the Kriegsmarine.

Note also that the North African campaign proved the ability of the
United States to launch an invasion across 4,000 miles of open
ocean--something never done before, and rarely since. That was quite
an accomplishment. It also turned a German ally -- the French colonial
army -- into a member of the Allied forces, and thus paved the way for
the Free French role in 1944.

Later on, a lot of German troops were tied up in the MTO keeping us
tied up in the MTO. Interesting question who came out ahead there...

Given that German and Italian prisoners are generally numbered well to
the north of 300,000, there is no question but that the North African
campaign was an astounding success for the Allies. Tunisia was an Axis
defeat on the scale of Stalingrad.

Sicily too was a splendid victory. It's true that the Allies got
bogged down in Italy in 1944, but that was largely because resources
were diverted to the invasion of France. I don't think it's fair to
say that the U.S. was "tied up" in Italy. We could have left any time
we wanted to. It was the Germans who were tied down.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
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?

Regards,


Because there is no way the invasion could have been successfully launched
in 1943.

The troops, landing craft and aircraft were simply not available and could
not be
mde available until the Battle of the Atlantic was won. Some 5000 ships and
landing craft,
600,000 tons of supplies and 200,000 vehicles had to be assembled in
addition
to the armies and then there's the little matter of winning air superiority
over the
landing beaches. Without the decimation of the Luftwaffe in late 1943 and
early 1944 and lacking long range escort fighters any attempted invasion
would
have been exceptionally risky.

As for the MTO it was simply not possible to isolate the German and
Italian armies and ignore them. Had they been able to seize the Suez
canal and middle east they would have had access to virtually unlimited
oil supplies from Iraq and Iran while at the same time cutting the
supply of those products to allied forces. Not good at all.
At the very least strong garrisons would have to be left along the
Egyptian Libyan frontier and the Germans would be left with
bases in North Africa with which to harrass and attack shipping from
Australasia and South Africa heading for NW Europe.

As it was the forces captured when Tunisia fell were greater than
those captured at Stalingrad and not only was Italy knocked out of
the war but the Germans had to garrison that country as well
thus diverting troops who could have been used to defend
Northern France.

Keith

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:07:18 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Because there is no way the invasion could have been successfully launched
in 1943.

I disagree.


The troops,

There were as many divisions available as they were used between June
6th 1944 and August 1st 1944 on the Normandy bridgehead.

landing craft

Allies had enough landing craft to perform Husky in summer 1943 and
Torch in autumn 1942. There were certainly enough craft to land the
five divisions of the first wave and immediate support.

and aircraft were simply not available

Allies had in ETO and MTO at least twice as much aircraft (without
counting strategic bombers) than Luftwaffe had in total. Throughout
1943, Luftwaffe was incapable of preventing Allied air, naval and
ground operations in the Mediterranean. In case of 1943 invasion,
Allied assets that couldn't have been used in the Mediterranean (Air
Defense of Great Britain) would have been utilised.

Some 5000 ships and landing craft, 600,000 tons of supplies and 200,000
vehicles had to be assembled

These were the forces needed to arrive to German border within three
months of D-day, but such requirement would not be necessary condition
for the success of 1943 invasion.

in addition to the armies and then there's the little matter of winning air superiority
over the landing beaches. Without the decimation of the Luftwaffe in late 1943 and
early 1944 and lacking long range escort fighters any attempted invasion
would have been exceptionally risky.

Luftwaffe was incapable of defeating Allied air forces in the
Mediterranean. By mid 1943, Allies had twice as much fighters
available as Luftwaffe had. Allied did not need long range escorts for
air superiority over La Manche and bridgehead.


As for the MTO it was simply not possible to isolate the German and
Italian armies and ignore them.

Operation Torch was not necessary. If it was skipped, Allies would
have had the resources to establish a second front in north-western
France in 1943.


Had they been able to seize the Suez canal and middle east

It's long way from El Agheila to Iraq.

they would have had access to virtually unlimited oil supplies from Iraq

The wells that would have been thoroughly wrecked by retreating
British. It would have taken at least six months to repair the
damages.

In addition, Italy lacked enough tankers to carry the oil.


As it was the forces captured when Tunisia fell were greater than
those captured at Stalingrad and not only was Italy knocked out of
the war but the Germans had to garrison that country as well
thus diverting troops who could have been used to defend
Northern France.

Italian troops were disarmed and sent to work in Germany thus freeing
Germans to man the garrison divisions deployed to replace Italian
divisions. Italians were more efficient working in German war economy
than in Italian one.


Drax

Subject: What if we ignored N. Africa and the MTO?
From: (Drazen Kramaric)
Date: 12/6/03 12:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

and aircraft were simply not available

Allies had in ETO and MTO at least twice as much aircraft (without
counting strategic bombers) than Luftwaffe had in total. Throughout
1943, Luftwaffe was incapable of preventing Allied air, naval and
ground operations in the Mediterranean. In case of 1943 invasion,
Allied assets that couldn't have been used in the Mediterranean (Air
Defense of Great Britain) would have been utilised.

Some 5000 ships and landing craft, 600,000 tons of supplies and 200,000
vehicles had to be assembled

These were the forces needed to arrive to German border within three
months of D-day, but such requirement would not be necessary condition
for the success of 1943 invasion.

in addition to the armies and then there's the little matter of winning air
superiority
over the landing beaches. Without the decimation of the Luftwaffe in late
1943 and
early 1944 and lacking long range escort fighters any attempted invasion
would have been exceptionally risky.

Luftwaffe was incapable of defeating Allied air forces in the
Mediterranean. By mid 1943, Allies had twice as much fighters
available as Luftwaffe had. Allied did not need long range escorts for
air superiority over La Manche and bridgehead.


As for the MTO it was simply not possible to isolate the German and
Italian armies and ignore them.

Operation Torch was not necessary. If it was skipped, Allies would
have had the resources to establish a second front in north-western
France in 1943.


And Monte's entire 8th Army would have been in England and could have been
used in an invasion along with the supporting RAF aircraft The invasion a year
earlier was very possible had the MTO and African campaigns not taken place..

Regards,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...



And Monte's entire 8th Army would have been in England and could have
been
used in an invasion along with the supporting RAF aircraft The invasion a
year
earlier was very possible had the MTO and African campaigns not taken
place..



No the 8th army was stopping the German sweeping through Egypt
and Palestine at the time.

Do you think it would have been a good idea to allow them
to take the Suez Canal, Egypy and Tel Aviv ?

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...



And Monte's entire 8th Army would have been in England and could have
been
used in an invasion along with the supporting RAF aircraft The invasion
a
year
earlier was very possible had the MTO and African campaigns not taken
place..



No the 8th army was stopping the German sweeping through Egypt
and Palestine at the time.

Do you think it would have been a good idea to allow them
to take the Suez Canal, Egypy and Tel Aviv ?

Even if you believe that it is a good idea to let the Italians have all that
(not suggesting you do), all you would gain is an 8th Army that had no
combat experience and would likely have the same problems that they ran into
early in the middle east, without the German supply problems to let them
regroup.

"Drazen Kramaric" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:07:18 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Because there is no way the invasion could have been successfully
launched
in 1943.

I disagree.


The troops,

There were as many divisions available as they were used between June
6th 1944 and August 1st 1944 on the Normandy bridgehead.


There werent as many available for the follow up
waves however.

landing craft

Allies had enough landing craft to perform Husky in summer 1943 and
Torch in autumn 1942. There were certainly enough craft to land the
five divisions of the first wave and immediate support.


But not the follow up forces

and aircraft were simply not available

Allies had in ETO and MTO at least twice as much aircraft (without
counting strategic bombers) than Luftwaffe had in total. Throughout
1943, Luftwaffe was incapable of preventing Allied air, naval and
ground operations in the Mediterranean. In case of 1943 invasion,
Allied assets that couldn't have been used in the Mediterranean (Air
Defense of Great Britain) would have been utilised.


The Luftwaffed most certainly did cause casualties in Italy in 1943



Some 5000 ships and landing craft, 600,000 tons of supplies and 200,000
vehicles had to be assembled

These were the forces needed to arrive to German border within three
months of D-day, but such requirement would not be necessary condition
for the success of 1943 invasion.


That depends on what you mean by success. Sitting in an enclave
under artillery attack isnt typically considered a success

in addition to the armies and then there's the little matter of winning
air superiority
over the landing beaches. Without the decimation of the Luftwaffe in late
1943 and
early 1944 and lacking long range escort fighters any attempted invasion
would have been exceptionally risky.

Luftwaffe was incapable of defeating Allied air forces in the
Mediterranean. By mid 1943, Allies had twice as much fighters
available as Luftwaffe had. Allied did not need long range escorts for
air superiority over La Manche and bridgehead.


But they did to defeat the German air force in the West
which was much stronger than taht in the med.



As for the MTO it was simply not possible to isolate the German and
Italian armies and ignore them.

Operation Torch was not necessary. If it was skipped, Allies would
have had the resources to establish a second front in north-western
France in 1943.


But not to advance into Germany and win the war which
is the point.


Had they been able to seize the Suez canal and middle east

It's long way from El Agheila to Iraq.


Its a long way fro El Agheila to El Alamein but they managed that

they would have had access to virtually unlimited oil supplies from Iraq

The wells that would have been thoroughly wrecked by retreating
British. It would have taken at least six months to repair the
damages.


Which gives them lots of oil in 1944

In addition, Italy lacked enough tankers to carry the oil.


As it was the forces captured when Tunisia fell were greater than
those captured at Stalingrad and not only was Italy knocked out of
the war but the Germans had to garrison that country as well
thus diverting troops who could have been used to defend
Northern France.

Italian troops were disarmed and sent to work in Germany thus freeing
Germans to man the garrison divisions deployed to replace Italian
divisions. Italians were more efficient working in German war economy
than in Italian one.


How many German workers do you think were suitable to
provide army replacements in 1943 ?

Keith