What if we ignored N. Africa and the MTO?

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