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

"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

Cub Driver writes:

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.

Ooh, was that the revenge of the Jews? If they can't do anything about
the holocaust quickly, maybe giving advice like that to the Germans
was a form of revenge :-)

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

Seeing as they saw those as a source of raw materials and market for
goods, one can take a fair guess! But do you know some details (sorry,
it would take me days, if not weeks, to find something and read
it). In the case of military stuff, what could they give or even sell,
having too few themselves? I am thinking of Manchukuo and Thailand,
among others perhaps, which were equipped with Japanese aircraft. Any
facts on how these ended up there?

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

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

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:

Cub Driver writes:

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.

Ooh, was that the revenge of the Jews? If they can't do anything about
the holocaust quickly, maybe giving advice like that to the Germans
was a form of revenge :-)

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

Seeing as they saw those as a source of raw materials and market for
goods, one can take a fair guess! But do you know some details (sorry,
it would take me days, if not weeks, to find something and read
it). In the case of military stuff, what could they give or even sell,
having too few themselves? I am thinking of Manchukuo and Thailand,
among others perhaps, which were equipped with Japanese aircraft. Any
facts on how these ended up there?

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

Is you're sister called Jude?
wally

From: Gernot Hassenpflug

I am thinking of Manchukuo and Thailand,
among others perhaps, which were equipped with Japanese aircraft. Any
facts on how these ended up there?

I once knew a retired Japanese construction engineer who said that during the
"Fifteen Year War" he worked as an employee of a civilian contractor on a
number of projects in Chosen and Manshu as he called Korea and Manchuria.
Among these was a factory in Manchuria to build Nakajimas. So that's how
Manchuria might have got Japanese aircraft. He also worked on a similar project
in Java but got some unpleasant tropical disease and went home before it was
completed.
Incidentally, he said he was not drafted until well into 1945 and was trained
to resist a US assault on the homeland. He was damned glad when the war ended
without him ever to fire a shot--or have a shot fired at him. I remember once
we clinked glasses to the toast, "Thank God for the atomic bomb!"
Allowed him to get back into construction and make several mints in the postwar
Japanese building boom, most of which in his retirement he blew playing golf at
various exclusive country clubs or in the gambling dens and houses of ill
repute of Reno and environs. He was good buddies with a friend of mine who
retired to Reno after a similar career in construction on the US side. During
the Big One he'd been in a wire company in the Ardennes and in the occupation
of Germany. Had a jolly German wife who this Japanese guy seemed utterly
fascinated with. She was about twice his size....well, I'm rambling...
Military aviation content, at one point these two bought a PBY they intended to
fix up as a flying RV and tour the south seas islands in. Don't know how that
turned out.


Chris Mark

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"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.

I just read "An Army at Dawn". Given the mistakes the Allies made invading
North Africa, trying to invade France without the lessons we learned in
Operation Torch would have been disastrous.

Glenn D.

I am thinking of Manchukuo and Thailand,
among others perhaps, which were equipped with Japanese aircraft. Any
facts on how these ended up there?

I don't know, but I suspect they were sold. Of course they weren't
front-line aircraft. The army I know provided Ki-27 "Nate" fighters to
both those satellites. (Type 97 Army Fighter

More significantly, Japan turned over a sentai (group) of Nakajima
Ki-43-IIB Hayabusa fighters to the Royal Thai air force in the spring
of 1944. Richard Bueschel says that one squadron served in China under
Japanese command.

Several countires including France used captured Hayabusas postwar.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:

Cub Driver writes:

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.

Ooh, was that the revenge of the Jews? If they can't do anything about
the holocaust quickly, maybe giving advice like that to the Germans
was a form of revenge :-)

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

Seeing as they saw those as a source of raw materials and market for
goods, one can take a fair guess! But do you know some details (sorry,
it would take me days, if not weeks, to find something and read
it). In the case of military stuff, what could they give or even sell,
having too few themselves? I am thinking of Manchukuo and Thailand,
among others perhaps, which were equipped with Japanese aircraft. Any
facts on how these ended up there?

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

The Thai ones were probably replacements for the aircraft
the Thais lost in their war with Vichy France. The Thais
were more or less under Japanese occupation, so probably had
no choice about where to buy replacement aircraft. Thailand
actually declared war against the US, but the US more or
less ignored that fact and never treated the Thais as
enemies.

Joe


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

The Thai ones were probably replacements for the aircraft
the Thais lost in their war with Vichy France. The Thais

The Royal Thai air force had some Curtiss 75 (P-36 type) Hawks,
perhaps with fixed landing gear. The Japanese shot down a few of these
when they moved into Thailand on Dec 7/8, and the survivors must have
been pretty weary by 1943.

were more or less under Japanese occupation, so probably had
no choice about where to buy replacement aircraft. Thailand
actually declared war against the US, but the US more or
less ignored that fact and never treated the Thais as
enemies.

The Thai ambassador in Washington simply declared himself the
representative of the Free Tais (well, whatever) and stayed in his
embassy throughout the war.

You have to admire a nation that resilient. Thailand is I believe the
only (or anyone one of the few) Asian nations that was never ruled by
a foreign power. Even the Japanese followed the niceties of being an
ally, not an occupier. By the summer of 1945, British agents were
operating more or less openly in Bangkok.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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