If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|