What if we ignored N. Africa and the MTO?

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

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a39bf46de8212ec98977d@news...
In article ,
says...

"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

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

That was only true up until the time of the capture of North Africa

By the time Scicily was invaded the allies had already taken
the Italian Island of Pantalleria and between the airfields
they had there and those on Malta were able to re-open the
Med to traffic.

It indeed cost a lot in shipping to go around the Cape
which is why they didnt do it when it could be avoided.
Troopships and supplies from East Africa and Australia
would come through the Suez Canal but the rest came
via the straits of Gibraltar.

The invasion of Scicily and Italy involved substantial
US and Canadian forces who most certainly did not
travel round the cape and neither did their supplies.



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

I never said anything about subsequent.

Of course you did, you said

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 a matter of record that the Torch force and its supplies
came in via Gibraltar

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


snip


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

Never denied that either.

You asked a question, I answered it.


And a lot of oil

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

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

snip

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

No there were large fields in Norther Iraq around Mosul
which were routed via pipeline to Haifa

[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
Iran. If he did make it to Iran, the British would make sure that there
would be that there would be so much damage to the oil fields and the
pipelines that it will be a long time before the fields would be of any
use.

All of which is only possible if the British defend the Middle East
take a look atv the title of this thread

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

The only fields the German took in Russia were some very
small fields, the whole Satalingrad campaign was part of an
attempt to seize the Caucasian oilfields

snip


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
assault on Leningrad and then once it falls, a very risky direct assault
on Moscow and pray that the Russian army on his flanks in Kiev don't do
him much damage.


Germany captured Kiev in 1941 BEFORE they attempted the
assault on Moscow. By that time they already had Leningrad
besieged. The only Soviet army in good enough shape in
1941 to launch an offensive was the Siberian force and they
had to be held back until the Soviets were sure which way
the Japanese were going to jump. It was that force which
shocked the Germans in the Soviet winter offensive of 1941/42


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

Once the Germans failed to knock the USSR out of the war in 1941
it was just a matter of time until the vast manpower and industrial
resources of the Russians overwhelmed them.

The Wehrmach was in retreat on the eastern front BEFORE D-Day


Keith

Bernardz writes:

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
assault on Leningrad and then once it falls, a very risky direct assault
on Moscow and pray that the Russian army on his flanks in Kiev don't do
him much damage.

You're kidding, right? Look at Russian history! Even Tsushima, as
terrible a defeat as can happen to a Navy, with demoralized crews,
they fought many ships until the water closed over them, or no more
ammunition remained or no guns could fire. Pray.... yeah right! :-)

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

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