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

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

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.

The Axis nations seemed not to grasp the notion of alliances. Germany
had a perfectly good ally on its northern flank in the war against
Russia, but instead of supplying materiel to Finland, it *sold* the
stuff. Not only did it sell the Bf-109s--it even charged the Finns for
the aircraft it captured in France and sent north to the FAF, which
was already equipped with numerous foreign aircraft as a result of the
Winter War of 1939-1940.

As for Japan--better not go into how the Japanese treated the
"liberated" nations of Southeast Asia.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

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

In article , says...
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.

It was an example nothing else.


The Germans and everybody
else always had too few of these.

Your point being. The loss of these planes really hurt.


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.


Alliance is why Hitler originally only wanted to defend a small part.
Without Italy he would have defended none of it.

--
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

"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?

Mainly because we would have been handed our heads, trying to invade in
mid-1943. The short reason would be that the Sovs wouldn't have whittled
down the Wehrmacht enough at that point to make a Western Front possible.
Also the Brits wouldn't go. Churchill and the Imperial General Staff were
scared stiff of a direct confrontation with the Wehrmacht based on their
experience in 1940.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:33:25 -0500, Cub Driver wrote:

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.

The Axis nations seemed not to grasp the notion of alliances. Germany
had a perfectly good ally on its northern flank in the war against
Russia, but instead of supplying materiel to Finland, it *sold* the
stuff. Not only did it sell the Bf-109s--it even charged the Finns for
the aircraft it captured in France and sent north to the FAF, which
was already equipped with numerous foreign aircraft as a result of the
Winter War of 1939-1940.

Not only that, they wouldn't let Hungary -- which had a large arms
industry -- copy German weapons.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).