|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Dec 26, 2019 3:17:05 GMT
Senior leadership within the Third Reich would've had to cancel the invasion plans for the USSR in favor of the Mediterranean Strategy for 1941 to make this possible.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843 
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Dec 26, 2019 10:02:43 GMT
Senior leadership within the Third Reich would've had to cancel the invasion plans for the USSR in favor of the Mediterranean Strategy for 1941 to make this possible.
Possibly, or since we're talking about Hitler and the Nazis they could try doing both. It wouldn't mean much loss of troops if Spain went Axis very quickly after the fall of France and especially if it butterflied either the BoB or Italy's attack on Greece [ or even both it could save them some forces committed elsewhere].
What Barbarossa would miss is a good chunk of the Luftwaffe, which could reduce the Soviet losses considerably, unless the BoB is avoided in which case and IF the Nazis organised competently for once they might even be better off in June 41.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 26, 2019 10:54:06 GMT
Senior leadership within the Third Reich would've had to cancel the invasion plans for the USSR in favor of the Mediterranean Strategy for 1941 to make this possible. Well i was thinking the German invasion happen as well in this scenario, only that due some German luck the war is more 1943 front then 1944 OTL front. |
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Jan 22, 2020 1:06:56 GMT
A Spanish entry into the war as part of the Axis would quickly doom Gibraltar. German tank with plenty of Spanish infantry would overwhelm the defenses. The battle would play out similar to Sevastopol in 1942. With Gibraltar out of the way the Germans would have a much easier time defending the north African coast. Also Malta would probably go down soon after. With the Med now an Axis lake Monty could only be supplied through the Red Sea and Rommel's supply problems would go away. By 1944 North Africa would be a backwater since the Germans would probably reach the Suez canal if not the mid east. The Allies under pressure from the US would probably land someplace in France to knock out Germany directly since the soft underbelly would not be so soft.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 22, 2020 4:43:52 GMT
A Spanish entry into the war as part of the Axis would quickly doom Gibraltar. German tank with plenty of Spanish infantry would overwhelm the defenses. The battle would play out similar to Sevastopol in 1942. With Gibraltar out of the way the Germans would have a much easier time defending the north African coast. Also Malta would probably go down soon after. With the Med now an Axis lake Monty could only be supplied through the Red Sea and Rommel's supply problems would go away. By 1944 North Africa would be a backwater since the Germans would probably reach the Suez canal if not the mid east. The Allies under pressure from the US would probably land someplace in France to knock out Germany directly since the soft underbelly would not be so soft. I do not think the Germans will have reach the Suez canal, even in OTL they did not mange to reach it and i doubt the fall of Gibraltar would change that, once the United States enters the war. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 22, 2020 15:54:06 GMT
A Spanish entry into the war as part of the Axis would quickly doom Gibraltar. German tank with plenty of Spanish infantry would overwhelm the defenses. The battle would play out similar to Sevastopol in 1942. With Gibraltar out of the way the Germans would have a much easier time defending the north African coast. Also Malta would probably go down soon after. With the Med now an Axis lake Monty could only be supplied through the Red Sea and Rommel's supply problems would go away. By 1944 North Africa would be a backwater since the Germans would probably reach the Suez canal if not the mid east. The Allies under pressure from the US would probably land someplace in France to knock out Germany directly since the soft underbelly would not be so soft. I do not think the Germans will have reach the Suez canal, even in OTL they did not mange to reach it and i doubt the fall of Gibraltar would change that, once the United States enters the war. Without Gibraltar the entrance to the Med is closed and TORCH becomes impossible; Malta is likely to fall as well. This would significantly aid Rommel's logistics while severely handicapping the British, as they now must fully commit to the Cape route for resupply. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 22, 2020 15:56:17 GMT
I do not think the Germans will have reach the Suez canal, even in OTL they did not mange to reach it and i doubt the fall of Gibraltar would change that, once the United States enters the war. Without Gibraltar the entrance to the Med is closed and TORCH becomes impossible; Malta is likely to fall as well. This would significantly aid Rommel's logistics while severely handicapping the British, as they now must fully commit to the Cape route for resupply. So the British will have to form a line at Suez and hoop it can hold long enough for US troops to join and drive the Germans/Italians back. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Jan 22, 2020 19:32:45 GMT
Without Gibraltar the entrance to the Med is closed and TORCH becomes impossible; Malta is likely to fall as well. This would significantly aid Rommel's logistics while severely handicapping the British, as they now must fully commit to the Cape route for resupply. So the British will have to form a line at Suez and hoop it can hold long enough for US troops to join and drive the Germans/Italians back.
Provided Churchill could be restained the defensive line would probably be the OTL 42 one at El Alemien. Its virtually impossible for the Axis to get past that provided the defenders don't do something very stupid. The loss of Malta would ease Axis supply problems but only to a degree. You still have to get supplies to the front and the ports at Benghazi and Tobruk were insufficient to supply a major force. Tripoli, although more capable was a very long way from the Egyptian border.
In one way the fall of Malta would aid British logistics as it meant that the difficult and often militarily expensive task of supplying Malta would be removed. Since virtually all supplies/reinforcements from Britain to Egypt came via the Cape the fact the Med would be totally closed would be relatively unimportant. The problem would be that an Axis Spain would extend the range of their a/c and subs in the Battle of the Atlantic, including the 1st stages of reinforcement of Egypt and the probable capture of the Canaries may not greatly alter that, especially in the early period.
Not sure if a Torch type operation would be impossible but it would have to land on the Atlantic coasts of Morocco, which would be more risky and they would then have to fight their way through to at least Tunis probably. Might be more likely that nothing occurs there and landings in 43/44 - probably the latter - occur in either Spain or France.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 22, 2020 19:57:02 GMT
So the British will have to form a line at Suez and hoop it can hold long enough for US troops to join and drive the Germans/Italians back. Provided Churchill could be restained the defensive line would probably be the OTL 42 one at El Alemien. A yes Churchill sometimes a liability to any operation ore campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 23, 2020 5:36:25 GMT
Without Gibraltar the entrance to the Med is closed and TORCH becomes impossible; Malta is likely to fall as well. This would significantly aid Rommel's logistics while severely handicapping the British, as they now must fully commit to the Cape route for resupply. So the British will have to form a line at Suez and hoop it can hold long enough for US troops to join and drive the Germans/Italians back. Maybe Alexandria, perhaps. I'd imagine there would be no TORCH in this ATL, but instead an expeditionary force sent to Egypt. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 24, 2020 9:23:52 GMT
So the British will have to form a line at Suez and hoop it can hold long enough for US troops to join and drive the Germans/Italians back. Maybe Alexandria, perhaps. I'd imagine there would be no TORCH in this ATL, but instead an expeditionary force sent to Egypt. That could be a possibility. |
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Jan 25, 2020 6:50:06 GMT
A non stop run around the cape would be a long way to go from the US making the build up slow. Also given time Tobruk's port facilities would be improved. There is also the possiblity that U boats and surface raiders could no operate out of Gibraltar, Spain or Southern France. These ports would be more difficult for Bomber Command to target. The most likely result would be increased US pressure for an invasion of Europe through northern France to take out Germany directly. A holding action in North Africa may be able to draw off some troops.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Jan 25, 2020 11:53:30 GMT
A non stop run around the cape would be a long way to go from the US making the build up slow. Also given time Tobruk's port facilities would be improved. There is also the possiblity that U boats and surface raiders could no operate out of Gibraltar, Spain or Southern France. These ports would be more difficult for Bomber Command to target. The most likely result would be increased US pressure for an invasion of Europe through northern France to take out Germany directly. A holding action in North Africa may be able to draw off some troops.
I suspect that for political reasons the US would be unwilling to send forces to Egypt. Their leadership was rather obsessed with getting into France ASAP regardless of how unrealistic it was. That's why I suspect, especially in this scenario that an invasion before 44 would probably fail. As you say the Battle of the Atlantic would be more difficult because of the additional more favourable bases for operations in Iberia.
Not sure how much the facilities of either Tobruk or Benghazi could be increased, as IIRC their quite shallow and also to do so resources would have to be brought to those ports to do so and they would be major targets for the RAF and RN. Also the Qattara Depression makes for a very good defensive position as the coastal strip is narrow and can't easily be bypassed so any Axis attack would have to be frontal into prepared defences.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 26, 2020 11:28:45 GMT
I suspect that for political reasons the US would be unwilling to send forces to Egypt. Their leadership was rather obsessed with getting into France ASAP regardless of how unrealistic it was. That's why I suspect, especially in this scenario that an invasion before 44 would probably fail. As you say the Battle of the Atlantic would be more difficult because of the additional more favourable bases for operations in
Why not, by 1944 the Allies could amass more troops in Egypt and Libya than what the Germans/Italians and Spanish can muster, also by that time i can see B-29s operating from basses in Palestine hitting targets in North Africa. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Jan 26, 2020 13:06:16 GMT
I suspect that for political reasons the US would be unwilling to send forces to Egypt. Their leadership was rather obsessed with getting into France ASAP regardless of how unrealistic it was. That's why I suspect, especially in this scenario that an invasion before 44 would probably fail. As you say the Battle of the Atlantic would be more difficult because of the additional more favourable bases for operations in
Why not, by 1944 the Allies could amass more troops in Egypt and Libya than what the Germans/Italians and Spanish can muster, also by that time i can see B-29s operating from basses in Palestine hitting targets in North Africa.
The problem is that with the Med closed and no base at Gib or liberation of FNA Egypt is pretty much a backwater. Britain can easily hold it and its important to do so because of the canal and access to the ME we don't want the Axis to have. However given the greater control of the Med the Axis can reinforce their forces more easily while its a bloody long supply line from Alexandria to Tripoli or Tunis.
In terms of why I would fear an attempted invasion of France before 44 there are a number of reasons. a) Spain in the Axis and the resultant loss of Gib, even with an early British occupation of the Canaries means more dangerous bases for the U boats and long ranged patrol a/c to attack convoy. Possibly also Gib could be used for German heavy raiders, which would be a lot harder for BC to target. Similarly merchant raiders could also return to the region to refuel and rearm. At the same time while the Canaries are useful I don't think they would be able to support a major fleet as Gib would so Britain has reduced capacity to operate heavy units in the area. All this means a harder and longer Battle in the Atlantic and until that is realistically won any attempt on invading France is stupid. While its range limitations and Mussolini's caution might prevent it the allies even have to consider the Italian fleet rebasing to Iberia and posing a major threat to convoys in the area.
b) With no fighting in western N Africa or Italy the allies, especially the Americans have little/no experience in Europe of fighting or of amphibious assaults or organising air support for ground forces. Britain could gain some experience with operations against the Axis in Egypt but logistics is unlikely to see them get further than Benghazi under those circumstances, with probably occasional disasters forcing them back to El Alemein. It might be better if Britain took a purely defensive role after the fall of Gib, which could mean the forces are available to defend Malaya and the DEI successfully, which would have a huge impact on the war in the Far East. However this would mean British forces had minimal experience against German forces.
c) Correspondingly this scenario means that Italy is still in the Axis and garrisoning chunks of the Balkans. Also without Torch Vichy France is in existence. Those all mean that Germany has less territory to garrison in the Med and hasn't lost the forces it did OTL in the defeats in N Africa and Italy nor needing an army to defend the latter. As such even without a single Italian fighting on any western front Germany will have more forces potentially available for operations against any landing in France. You might even see a Vichy France more under Hitler's thumb declaring such a landing as an attack on France and joining the Axis, albeit that possibly navy aside their unlikely to add much military strength.
As such an invasion as OTL in 44 is likely to be more difficult and one in 43, especially if the Atlantic is still unsecured and with less allied experience and probably no Mulberries and the like would be very risky and I fear likely to fail. It could be that Hitler wastes the extra resources available to him in the east or elsewhere but then they might have some effect in improving the German position in the east.
In terms of the B-29 it wasn't entering service until May 44 despite major efforts and it was the B-29B, modified to fly faster and lower by removing most of the armament that really made the difference in the massed fire-bomb attacks on Japanese cities from spring 45 onwards. Such a tactic is far less likely to work in Europe even with a reduced Luftwaffe and I can't see it being available in any significant numbers for a 44 invasion of Europe.
Steve
|
|
