stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896 
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 20, 2024 9:27:09 GMT
The only wise option for the Jews would be to retreat to Egypt with the retiring British/allied forces but I suspect too many will decide to stay and fight no matter how hopeless having finally gotten a foothold in their holy land again.
I don't think there were much in the way of Christian fundamentalists, at least in terms of the recent US necon type about there, although there were definitely some support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However there's a desperate battle going on and not going well so I doubt they would have much influence.
If the Soviets are occupying all of Iran and at all assisting the Germans - although they may not given their being blocked from any share of the spoils - then I doubt the allies, especially relatively inexperienced US forces with no real knowledge of the region can stay in the southern marshes long, especially since they could probably be flanked by a German drive around the west flank to the Kuwait region and the US would have a great risk of being isolated and destroyed with an evacuation by sea being potentially very costly.
Sure, the Jews would go to a safe place if there was one, but where? Egypt has many antisemitic natives, encouraged by the Axis propaganda. We're talking about over 400,000 people here. And immigrating to some other place is not easy, to put it mildly. And would they really want to give up the Holy Land, after having invested so much into it? If the Allies revived the Sitka idea... not sure yet.
Neocons weren't around yet of course, and I don't know much about Xtianity in the US at that time.
Stalin will deliver resources to the Germans (very important), but not actually join the war. He'll rather hope that the Axis and WAllies will wear each other down, so he may have the opportunity to strike somewhen in the future. If the Germans ask him about it, he can always claim that the Red Army suffered too many losses.
Also, I'm currently digging through uboat.net. Nice site. There are many new techs to consider - radar, sonar/ASDIC, HF/DF developed during the war, and may appear either faster or slower. If Bletchley Park isn't successful, the WAllies may well try something else. Also, instead of delivering airplanes (L&L) to the SU, they can use them by themselves - as long as they can man them... Or what about the Leigh Light? Something not to be underestimated.
And I'm still wondering what exactly killed the three Aces in March 1941. Sure looks like a strange coincidence. Enigma wasn't really broken yet, not even "Dolphin". Did Prien, Schepke, and Kretschmer simply become careless after things went so well for such a long time? It could happen - because the Japanese had a similar problem.
Well Egypt being under allied control is a lot safer than a Palestine controlled by the Nazis who will be eager to stir up the local Arabs to slaughter them and then when that probably fails do the job themselves. In the assumption that Palestine isn't removed from Axis control there are options elsewhere in the empire, especially in E Africa.
Stalin is taking a hell of a risk with the Nazis rampant like that that once the allies are defeated/forced into peace, the Nazis don't simply turn on him again. This does mean that there's no attack on India which considerable eases the allied position as with the Soviets technically at peace they only have one of important land combat zone against the Germans, in Egypt with as long as they can keep it supplied interior lines against two converging Axis forces both heavily limited by logistics. - I can't see a US attempt to survive in a fairly isolated southern Iraq lasting long for the reasons I said before.
The BothA was a complex conflict and the allies generally put more intellectual effort into it, probably largely because Britain especially realized how important it was. By about March 41 they were starting to recover from the fall of France, both in terms of the loss of the French navy and probably even more importantly their Atlantic ports going from friendly to German controlled bases. Here there is the additional issue of Spain openly and fully joining the Axis, although that could be after spring 41 - forgetting the date. It swung backwards and forwards but Britain was gaining some control of the situation until the Japanese attack not only imperiled vital Indian Ocean traffic but also brought the US into the war enabling the slaughter in American waters and Caribbean a major issue until the US got its act together.
It could be a combination of complacency by the commanders. Britain making better use of the greater resources becoming available and a measure of luck, all coming together at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 23, 2024 22:51:29 GMT
Sure, the Jews would go to a safe place if there was one, but where? Egypt has many antisemitic natives, encouraged by the Axis propaganda. We're talking about over 400,000 people here. And immigrating to some other place is not easy, to put it mildly. And would they really want to give up the Holy Land, after having invested so much into it? If the Allies revived the Sitka idea... not sure yet.
Neocons weren't around yet of course, and I don't know much about Xtianity in the US at that time.
Stalin will deliver resources to the Germans (very important), but not actually join the war. He'll rather hope that the Axis and WAllies will wear each other down, so he may have the opportunity to strike somewhen in the future. If the Germans ask him about it, he can always claim that the Red Army suffered too many losses.
Also, I'm currently digging through uboat.net. Nice site. There are many new techs to consider - radar, sonar/ASDIC, HF/DF developed during the war, and may appear either faster or slower. If Bletchley Park isn't successful, the WAllies may well try something else. Also, instead of delivering airplanes (L&L) to the SU, they can use them by themselves - as long as they can man them... Or what about the Leigh Light? Something not to be underestimated.
And I'm still wondering what exactly killed the three Aces in March 1941. Sure looks like a strange coincidence. Enigma wasn't really broken yet, not even "Dolphin". Did Prien, Schepke, and Kretschmer simply become careless after things went so well for such a long time? It could happen - because the Japanese had a similar problem.
Well Egypt being under allied control is a lot safer than a Palestine controlled by the Nazis who will be eager to stir up the local Arabs to slaughter them and then when that probably fails do the job themselves. In the assumption that Palestine isn't removed from Axis control there are options elsewhere in the empire, especially in E Africa.
Stalin is taking a hell of a risk with the Nazis rampant like that that once the allies are defeated/forced into peace, the Nazis don't simply turn on him again. This does mean that there's no attack on India which considerable eases the allied position as with the Soviets technically at peace they only have one of important land combat zone against the Germans, in Egypt with as long as they can keep it supplied interior lines against two converging Axis forces both heavily limited by logistics. - I can't see a US attempt to survive in a fairly isolated southern Iraq lasting long for the reasons I said before.
The BothA was a complex conflict and the allies generally put more intellectual effort into it, probably largely because Britain especially realized how important it was. By about March 41 they were starting to recover from the fall of France, both in terms of the loss of the French navy and probably even more importantly their Atlantic ports going from friendly to German controlled bases. Here there is the additional issue of Spain openly and fully joining the Axis, although that could be after spring 41 - forgetting the date. It swung backwards and forwards but Britain was gaining some control of the situation until the Japanese attack not only imperiled vital Indian Ocean traffic but also brought the US into the war enabling the slaughter in American waters and Caribbean a major issue until the US got its act together.
It could be a combination of complacency by the commanders. Britain making better use of the greater resources becoming available and a measure of luck, all coming together at the same time.
First about your post:
* Theoretically there should be enough place in the Empire for 400,000 Jews. At this time, the mass murders of Jews in Eastern Europe have started already, but it's the question of how many informations about this have arrived in the Anglosphere. In "Hitler's Mediterranean Strategy" (which was far from perfect of course), they manage to form a pocket in northern Palestine so most of them survive until the Allies' victory. ITTL will be different, that much is sure. * The US would have more than half a year to build up forces in southern Iraq, and they do have better artillery, many planes, and Ike as a theater commander. It's a hard-to-judge scenario, with both sides having damn long supply routes. (Except if we're talking about Indian soldiers.) I could imagine that there'll be some back-and-forth fights in the plains of central Iraq. * Theoretically the Nazis might attack the SU again, but both sides have suffered horribly in the war. TTL Stalin will not know about it of course, but do you know this famous tape of the "führer"'s voice when he met Mannerheim in 1942? He admitted he wouldn't have made war against the SU if he had known how many T-34s they had. ITTL this will apply even more so. And since both sides have to fear that they'd be painted as the aggressor in case of a new war, and the Anglos helping whoever's attacked, they both may want to avoid another war. Sabre-rattling yes, but no more. * India - it's a place with many people, hence many potential soldiers. Thus, important for the WAllies' war efforts. Stalin's allowed to attack them in theory, but as said before, he'll prefer Anglos and Axis to wear each other down, and the WAllies can't do that without India.
* Franco joined in spring 1942, but only to take Gibraltar, and effectively left the war after taking it in the summer. Since this means one opponent less to fight, the WAllies will be glad about it.
About the submarine war:
There'll be many more things to consider. The Civil Air Patrol of the US (as some German sub captain later said, their damn planes were everywhere - it's the question how effective they'll be if Enigma's not cracked); the escort carriers (which weren't actually named CVEs until 7/43, which is too bad, since I can't mention the "Combustible, Vulnerable, and Expendable" quote then); and the B-Dienst, esp. Wilhelm Tarnow, cracking Allied codes; new arms like the Hedgehog and Squid; use of Anechoic tiles (the Nazis called their "Alberich"). Unless there'll be a good reason (better Enigma, more German subs) to change anything about that, I'll keep these things roughly as IOTL.
As said, after the end of Barbarossa, the Germans will be able to build more subs (although this won't be noticeable before mid-1942), and have more fuel too. Which doesn't mean that we could say "If they have twice as many subs in the Atlantic, they'll sink 100% more Allied ships". Even if the three aces don't die as in March 1941, I guess that the average new captain will be of lesser quality than the old ones. (OTOH, those who survive thanks to Enigma will rather become better. On the third hand, if this makes them dare too much, they still might well die.)
As soon as the WAllies will have enough B-24 Liberators, there'll be huge air battles over the Bay of Biscay. ITTL, the Germans won't have to fight a war in the East anymore, and they'll have more and probably better planes, and more fuel for them as well. And many Heer soldiers will be able to serve in anti-air units instead. With no need to man them with teenagers. Which opens a different question: How will the public opinion in the Anglosphere react if more and more pilots won't come back? Theoretically they still have more men available, but people will react badly.
Then there's the question on whether the WAllies won't simply develop new countermeasures if their losses become too high to bear. Like Frederic "Johnnie" Walker's creeping attack. Maybe some from OTL which might be developed quicker. Of course they'll want to, that's not the question. There's rather the question on whether you can accelerate such developments by throwing men and money at them. After all, it's not that the Allied people weren't motivated to fight the Nazis.
Some infos I found on the web: |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 24, 2024 1:54:07 GMT
And I'm still wondering what exactly killed the three Aces in March 1941. Sure looks like a strange coincidence. Enigma wasn't really broken yet, not even "Dolphin". Did Prien, Schepke, and Kretschmer simply become careless after things went so well for such a long time? It could happen - because the Japanese had a similar problem.
OK, I retrieved the necessary info. IOTL the Brits raided the Lofotes in March 1941 (Operation Claymore), capturing the whole Enigma keys for February. You can imagine how much this helped Bletchley Park.
Also, there were the captured weather ships, like the München (May 1941) and Lauenburg (June 28th). Yeah, wasn't a good idea to not protect them better.
And of course U-110, also in May 1941.
Of course, Claymore depended on having enough commandos ready. However, with most of the BEF captured at Dunkirk, there'll be much fewer veterans available. Failure breeds failure...
ITTL Churchill will have to make tough decisions: Strike against the heavy water factory, or rather this? A nazi nuke is a horrific thought, and so far, Bletchley Park has just managed to crack the Luftwaffe codes. (And who says that they couldn't notch up their security either?)
Or he'd take a note from Ian Fleming, i.e. Operation Ruthless. If it works, crazy geniuses will become more popular ITTL. If not, they may lose many good spies with such actions...
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 24, 2024 14:50:12 GMT
And I'm still wondering what exactly killed the three Aces in March 1941. Sure looks like a strange coincidence. Enigma wasn't really broken yet, not even "Dolphin". Did Prien, Schepke, and Kretschmer simply become careless after things went so well for such a long time? It could happen - because the Japanese had a similar problem.
OK, I retrieved the necessary info. IOTL the Brits raided the Lofotes in March 1941 (Operation Claymore), capturing the whole Enigma keys for February. You can imagine how much this helped Bletchley Park.
Also, there were the captured weather ships, like the München (May 1941) and Lauenburg (June 28th). Yeah, wasn't a good idea to not protect them better.
And of course U-110, also in May 1941.
Of course, Claymore depended on having enough commandos ready. However, with most of the BEF captured at Dunkirk, there'll be much fewer veterans available. Failure breeds failure...
ITTL Churchill will have to make tough decisions: Strike against the heavy water factory, or rather this? A nazi nuke is a horrific thought, and so far, Bletchley Park has just managed to crack the Luftwaffe codes. (And who says that they couldn't notch up their security either?)
Or he'd take a note from Ian Fleming, i.e. Operation Ruthless. If it works, crazy geniuses will become more popular ITTL. If not, they may lose many good spies with such actions...
Depends on what you mean by protect. For them to do their duty they need to be deep into British/allied controlled waters and the KM doesn't have suitable ships to protect them so they need to keep hidden.
According to their wiki entry the initial recruiting was I don't know if that means that forces withdrawn from France weren't included but there's still likely to be some from those withdrawn from Norway and if that initial draft included men evacuated from France, most of which won't he available in your TL then Britain might be asking more people. In TTL there will be less people and probably somewhat lower initial skill set up in the initial forces. However likely to have men available in a fairly similar speed to OTL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 25, 2024 22:37:06 GMT
OK, I retrieved the necessary info. IOTL the Brits raided the Lofotes in March 1941 (Operation Claymore), capturing the whole Enigma keys for February. You can imagine how much this helped Bletchley Park.
Also, there were the captured weather ships, like the München (May 1941) and Lauenburg (June 28th). Yeah, wasn't a good idea to not protect them better.
And of course U-110, also in May 1941.
Of course, Claymore depended on having enough commandos ready. However, with most of the BEF captured at Dunkirk, there'll be much fewer veterans available. Failure breeds failure...
ITTL Churchill will have to make tough decisions: Strike against the heavy water factory, or rather this? A nazi nuke is a horrific thought, and so far, Bletchley Park has just managed to crack the Luftwaffe codes. (And who says that they couldn't notch up their security either?)
Or he'd take a note from Ian Fleming, i.e. Operation Ruthless. If it works, crazy geniuses will become more popular ITTL. If not, they may lose many good spies with such actions...
Depends on what you mean by protect. For them to do their duty they need to be deep into British/allied controlled waters and the KM doesn't have suitable ships to protect them so they need to keep hidden.
According to their wiki entry the initial recruiting was I don't know if that means that forces withdrawn from France weren't included but there's still likely to be some from those withdrawn from Norway and if that initial draft included men evacuated from France, most of which won't he available in your TL then Britain might be asking more people. In TTL there will be less people and probably somewhat lower initial skill set up in the initial forces. However likely to have men available in a fairly similar speed to OTL.
1. Yeah, but the weather ships weren't even armed. (And apparently they hadn't prepared what to do if attacked either.) 2. I can't imagine that the Dunkirk troops weren't used for the Commandos, even if the sentence sounds like it. For what reason? They were veterans after all.
But yes, there will be Commando raids still, albeit fewer. First, the war will be shorter; second, even if many of them can be raised from the TA and such, there will be fewer. IOTL, they made about 100 raids; ITTL, for the reasons mentioned, less than 50. But that's just my rough guess.
Edit: About half of those raids will target the Atlantikwall, as IOTL. The rest... there will be one attack on Rommel (doesn't have to be successful, esp. if they make the mistake to look for him far behind the front); one attack against the factory for heavy water in Rjukan, Norway; during Operation Freedom, they'll capture the governor of Morocco in his palace in the capital; several will have to happen in the Pacific theater as well. The one on the Lofotes will probably be scrapped, or happen later - which means that the "führer" will give his OK to move two divisions occupying Norway to Karelia. (Which I need there for Operation Golden Fox.)
Doesn't mean that the Brits won't have successes helping them with Enigma. The problem will be that M-4 will be used since late 1940, so the Germans are two years ahead technology-wise. And if the fellows of Bletchley Park don't have successes to show, that'll mean less funding. A vicious circle... at the very least, they have cracked the Luftwaffe code, so the Battle of Britain will have the same result as IOTL.
Currently I'm crunching numbers (plus a bit of randomization) and decided: In 1940, after the PoD (late May), the Germans will lose 11 subs with ~270 Men and sink over 400 ships with over 2.2 million BRTs. Which still means that they miss the target of 300,000 BRTs in all but five months. So much about that...
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 26, 2024 10:34:53 GMT
Depends on what you mean by protect. For them to do their duty they need to be deep into British/allied controlled waters and the KM doesn't have suitable ships to protect them so they need to keep hidden.
According to their wiki entry the initial recruiting was I don't know if that means that forces withdrawn from France weren't included but there's still likely to be some from those withdrawn from Norway and if that initial draft included men evacuated from France, most of which won't he available in your TL then Britain might be asking more people. In TTL there will be less people and probably somewhat lower initial skill set up in the initial forces. However likely to have men available in a fairly similar speed to OTL.
1. Yeah, but the weather ships weren't even armed. (And apparently they hadn't prepared what to do if attacked either.) 2. I can't imagine that the Dunkirk troops weren't used for the Commandos, even if the sentence sounds like it. For what reason? They were veterans after all.
But yes, there will be Commando raids still, albeit fewer. First, the war will be shorter; second, even if many of them can be raised from the TA and such, there will be fewer. IOTL, they made about 100 raids; ITTL, for the reasons mentioned, less than 50. But that's just my rough guess.
Edit: About half of those raids will target the Atlantikwall, as IOTL. The rest... there will be one attack on Rommel (doesn't have to be successful, esp. if they make the mistake to look for him far behind the front); one attack against the factory for heavy water in Rjukan, Norway; during Operation Freedom, they'll capture the governor of Morocco in his palace in the capital; several will have to happen in the Pacific theater as well. The one on the Lofotes will probably be scrapped, or happen later - which means that the "führer" will give his OK to move two divisions occupying Norway to Karelia. (Which I need there for Operation Golden Fox.)
Doesn't mean that the Brits won't have successes helping them with Enigma. The problem will be that M-4 will be used since late 1940, so the Germans are two years ahead technology-wise. And if the fellows of Bletchley Park don't have successes to show, that'll mean less funding. A vicious circle... at the very least, they have cracked the Luftwaffe code, so the Battle of Britain will have the same result as IOTL.
Currently I'm crunching numbers (plus a bit of randomization) and decided: In 1940, after the PoD (late May), the Germans will lose 11 subs with ~270 Men and sink over 400 ships with over 2.2 million BRTs. Which still means that they miss the target of 300,000 BRTs in all but five months. So much about that...
Can agree with the rest but not sure about that bit. Given how important the BotA was, even Churchill, who hated anything he saw as defensive realised, greater problems are likely to result in greater efforts as breaking the Enigma codes are so critical for the allies. Especially at sea but also in the air and on land. Think of its importance at D day and elsewhere because the allies had such good info on where the German forces were. Although part of that was the ability to track without necessarily reading messages.
Similarly success could well prompt complacency in the Germans and your still likely to have Dönitz having his centralizing manta with subs having to radio in frequently so while Britain might not be able to read the messages they can get some idea where subs are.
Remember that while your working towards a Nazi victory scenario you don't want it too overwhelming. If there's a decisive victory for them in the BotA there would be questions about whether there would be an independent Britain at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 26, 2024 18:55:27 GMT
1. Yeah, but the weather ships weren't even armed. (And apparently they hadn't prepared what to do if attacked either.) 2. I can't imagine that the Dunkirk troops weren't used for the Commandos, even if the sentence sounds like it. For what reason? They were veterans after all.
But yes, there will be Commando raids still, albeit fewer. First, the war will be shorter; second, even if many of them can be raised from the TA and such, there will be fewer. IOTL, they made about 100 raids; ITTL, for the reasons mentioned, less than 50. But that's just my rough guess.
Edit: About half of those raids will target the Atlantikwall, as IOTL. The rest... there will be one attack on Rommel (doesn't have to be successful, esp. if they make the mistake to look for him far behind the front); one attack against the factory for heavy water in Rjukan, Norway; during Operation Freedom, they'll capture the governor of Morocco in his palace in the capital; several will have to happen in the Pacific theater as well. The one on the Lofotes will probably be scrapped, or happen later - which means that the "führer" will give his OK to move two divisions occupying Norway to Karelia. (Which I need there for Operation Golden Fox.)
Doesn't mean that the Brits won't have successes helping them with Enigma. The problem will be that M-4 will be used since late 1940, so the Germans are two years ahead technology-wise. And if the fellows of Bletchley Park don't have successes to show, that'll mean less funding. A vicious circle... at the very least, they have cracked the Luftwaffe code, so the Battle of Britain will have the same result as IOTL.
Currently I'm crunching numbers (plus a bit of randomization) and decided: In 1940, after the PoD (late May), the Germans will lose 11 subs with ~270 Men and sink over 400 ships with over 2.2 million BRTs. Which still means that they miss the target of 300,000 BRTs in all but five months. So much about that...
Can agree with the rest but not sure about that bit. Given how important the BotA was, even Churchill, who hated anything he saw as defensive realised, greater problems are likely to result in greater efforts as breaking the Enigma codes are so critical for the allies. Especially at sea but also in the air and on land. Think of its importance at D day and elsewhere because the allies had such good info on where the German forces were. Although part of that was the ability to track without necessarily reading messages.
Similarly success could well prompt complacency in the Germans and your still likely to have Dönitz having his centralizing manta with subs having to radio in frequently so while Britain might not be able to read the messages they can get some idea where subs are.
Remember that while your working towards a Nazi victory scenario you don't want it too overwhelming. If there's a decisive victory for them in the BotA there would be questions about whether there would be an independent Britain at all.
OK, I should have written "might mean less funding". It's the big question: This way or that way? Arguably, both could happen.
Yes, Dönitz will centralize and try to direct several wolfpacks, like a conductor. That's why they had the Goliath transmitter built after all. Which won't be functional until early 1943, though.
M-4 won't last forever, that's for sure. The Germans will need to notch up their security at least once more. There are several possibilities for that, like giving every sub its own key network - a development that started when they made Triton/Shark in 1941 (OTL). That would allow them - if I'm not mistaken - to notch up security for individual subs if necessary (and it will become so).
Speaking of that: After all, TTL's M-4 was introduced because of that affair in the Abwehr. Let's say Canaris will fall in 1942, maybe because he didn't predict the Morocco invasion. This might become the event which makes the Nazis suspicious enough to use even more security.
About the result: I'm not sure what you mean by "decisive", but I just want Britain to make (albeit an uneasy, it's fully justified) peace with the Nazis, not having it conquered. (Of course, some other PM will have to make that peace, because Churchill capitulating like that is ASBish.)
But for that, the subs will have to cause significant damage.
Also, it'd fit well into the story if the "aces" were able to fight American ships at least for some time. (I've randomly decided that they all will survive until 1942, but then Kretschmer - of all people - will die in February, after which the "führer" will order Prien and Schepke to concentrate on training new crews. Until then, each of them might go eight more times on "Feindfahrt", if we assume that one mission usually takes a month, and they get a two-week holiday after that. That sums up to quite a number of ships - around 100, I guess. About 500,000 BRTs - well, the "aces" can't do everything, no matter what their fans think.)
There will be some factor which will actually reduce the number of sunk Allied ships somewhat (well, on its own, ignoring all other factors): Since the "führer" will order 20 subs into the Med in early 1941, which is a bad place for subs because the water there is clear, not to mention how they have to pass Gibraltar: They will be able to force Malta to capitulate, but this decision will cost the Germans several subs (in a time when they don't have yet that many) and opportunities to sink ships elsewhere.
IOTL, they sank 228 ships in 1941 until June 11th included (I'm using this weird cut-off because Barbarossa ITTL starts the next day), which equals to about 1.35 million BRTs. Only in two months, they made the 300,000 target. In the same timespan, they lost nine subs - and three aces.
First about the Med: IOTL, in late 1941 and early 1942, 29 subs were sent there. Two sank near Gibraltar, one didn't manage to enter. Until 8/42, ten more were sunk. But at that time, the Brits had already cracked Shark. (Then again, four subs were lost there & then even when M-4 was safe yet.)
Let's say the Brits manage to sink five German subs in the Med ITTL, 1941. Three before Barbarossa and two more afterwards. After the fall of Malta, several will return to the Atlantic.
Generally, we have to use the formula: OTL sinkings - (Med factor) + (Aces factor [only since 3/41!]) + (unbroken Enigma factor [dito]). Still, this might have the consequences that the Germans will sink around 250 ships with 1.5 million BRTs before Barbarossa, hitting their target since April (instead of May).
I agree that the Brits will want to do something about that, there's just the question what to do. Of course better weapons might help, but Britain doesn't have infinite amount of riches. Rather the opposite, hence "destroyers for bases". Also, if you want to research something, you can't throw money and men at it and expect sooner results. As the joke goes, you can't get a baby in one month by impregnating nine women either.
But for now, I want to hear your comments.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 26, 2024 22:41:08 GMT
Can agree with the rest but not sure about that bit. Given how important the BotA was, even Churchill, who hated anything he saw as defensive realised, greater problems are likely to result in greater efforts as breaking the Enigma codes are so critical for the allies. Especially at sea but also in the air and on land. Think of its importance at D day and elsewhere because the allies had such good info on where the German forces were. Although part of that was the ability to track without necessarily reading messages.
Similarly success could well prompt complacency in the Germans and your still likely to have Dönitz having his centralizing manta with subs having to radio in frequently so while Britain might not be able to read the messages they can get some idea where subs are.
Remember that while your working towards a Nazi victory scenario you don't want it too overwhelming. If there's a decisive victory for them in the BotA there would be questions about whether there would be an independent Britain at all.
OK, I should have written "might mean less funding". It's the big question: This way or that way? Arguably, both could happen.
Yes, Dönitz will centralize and try to direct several wolfpacks, like a conductor. That's why they had the Goliath transmitter built after all. Which won't be functional until early 1943, though.
M-4 won't last forever, that's for sure. The Germans will need to notch up their security at least once more. There are several possibilities for that, like giving every sub its own key network - a development that started when they made Triton/Shark in 1941 (OTL). That would allow them - if I'm not mistaken - to notch up security for individual subs if necessary (and it will become so).
Speaking of that: After all, TTL's M-4 was introduced because of that affair in the Abwehr. Let's say Canaris will fall in 1942, maybe because he didn't predict the Morocco invasion. This might become the event which makes the Nazis suspicious enough to use even more security.
About the result: I'm not sure what you mean by "decisive", but I just want Britain to make (albeit an uneasy, it's fully justified) peace with the Nazis, not having it conquered. (Of course, some other PM will have to make that peace, because Churchill capitulating like that is ASBish.)
But for that, the subs will have to cause significant damage.
Also, it'd fit well into the story if the "aces" were able to fight American ships at least for some time. (I've randomly decided that they all will survive until 1942, but then Kretschmer - of all people - will die in February, after which the "führer" will order Prien and Schepke to concentrate on training new crews. Until then, each of them might go eight more times on "Feindfahrt", if we assume that one mission usually takes a month, and they get a two-week holiday after that. That sums up to quite a number of ships - around 100, I guess. About 500,000 BRTs - well, the "aces" can't do everything, no matter what their fans think.)
There will be some factor which will actually reduce the number of sunk Allied ships somewhat (well, on its own, ignoring all other factors): Since the "führer" will order 20 subs into the Med in early 1941, which is a bad place for subs because the water there is clear, not to mention how they have to pass Gibraltar: They will be able to force Malta to capitulate, but this decision will cost the Germans several subs (in a time when they don't have yet that many) and opportunities to sink ships elsewhere.
IOTL, they sank 228 ships in 1941 until June 11th included (I'm using this weird cut-off because Barbarossa ITTL starts the next day), which equals to about 1.35 million BRTs. Only in two months, they made the 300,000 target. In the same timespan, they lost nine subs - and three aces.
First about the Med: IOTL, in late 1941 and early 1942, 29 subs were sent there. Two sank near Gibraltar, one didn't manage to enter. Until 8/42, ten more were sunk. But at that time, the Brits had already cracked Shark. (Then again, four subs were lost there & then even when M-4 was safe yet.)
Let's say the Brits manage to sink five German subs in the Med ITTL, 1941. Three before Barbarossa and two more afterwards. After the fall of Malta, several will return to the Atlantic.
Generally, we have to use the formula: OTL sinkings - (Med factor) + (Aces factor [only since 3/41!]) + (unbroken Enigma factor [dito]). Still, this might have the consequences that the Germans will sink around 250 ships with 1.5 million BRTs before Barbarossa, hitting their target since April (instead of May).
I agree that the Brits will want to do something about that, there's just the question what to do. Of course better weapons might help, but Britain doesn't have infinite amount of riches. Rather the opposite, hence "destroyers for bases". Also, if you want to research something, you can't throw money and men at it and expect sooner results. As the joke goes, you can't get a baby in one month by impregnating nine women either.
But for now, I want to hear your comments.
Yes there are diminishing returns for throwing money and other resources into a problem so there's a limit that Britain can do. However they will have to try something as things get more and more desperate. Of course if Winston could be persuaded that we can't afford the massive resource sink that was the strategic bombing campaign that would free up a hell of a lot.
One saving for Britain of course is that after the new Nazi-Soviet pact there's going to be no aid to Stalin so the resources committed to the Arctic route will be freed up. However you would probably have a greater need for shipping around Africa because the route into Iran for Stalin of OTL is going to be replaced with the shipment of forces and then supplies and equipment for the forces seeking to hold Egypt and southern Iraq.
I think one of the other problems in terms of ships into the Med was that the Germans couldn't get them out again because the primary currents were flowing eastwards into the Med and subs trying to struggle against them while submerged wouldn't have the power to do so. However once NW Africa is in German hands and Gib is in Spanish control they could probably get out traveling on the surface.
One other big resource freer here could be far less US forces being shipped to and supplied in the UK as this would free up both shipping and also other resources, especially valuable land in Britain. By the sound of it will still have the USAAF seeking to launch a strategic campaign against Germany, although in the 42-43 period that's going to be even costlier than OTL for them with the stronger Luftwaffe so as with the British campaign their going to take heavier losses. However the fact those campaigns will end when the war does, which is something like 18-24 months earlier I think could reduce the total casualties somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Oct 31, 2024 7:37:48 GMT
For the beginning, a Stalin quote from TTL, from when he and the Axis dismembered Turkey in mid-1942: "Больной человек Европы сдох." (Pronounced: Bolnoy chelovek Yevropy sdokh; meaning: "The Sick Man of Europe has croaked") Which reminds me of Guderian and Hoth who fought with their panzers in Turkey ITTL. They'll be separated after this: One of them will go to Syria/Palestine, the other one to Mesopotamia. Any suggestions who should go where? Back to the submarine war. stevep: * Cancelling the strategic bombing campaign? That'd make TTL at least better in some regard. However, we'll have to consider that Germany will move the Luftwaffe ASAP to the West. Which'll also mean that they can guard the Bay of Biscay as soon as the WAllies will try to find and bomb the subs when they come and leave. * Yes, the WAllies will have some more resources available... I'll have to consider that when I'm crunching the numbers. * Oh, some German subs managed to leave again, despite of the current AND the WAllies. * Churchill may still fear an invasion. The troops in Britain shouldn't be weaker than IOTL. And FDR is planning - at least initially - a long-term invasion over the Channel. Many people cling to ideas they like even if others can see that the new facts have made the formerly good idea a bad idea. You have to believe me that FDR would be that kind of person - it's not for sure after all -, at least for some time.
(One important number to remember: It could well take two and a half years for a German sub from the day it was ordered to the day its crew had finished training and was ready to go forth and strike at Allied ships. Which'd mean that until early 1943, they'll probably only have those ordered pre-PoD. However, I expect that - given how scarce resources were in Nazi Germany - that as soon as they get more of them, like in B-L 2, bottlenecks in production will disappear, which might help. If the time between order and laydown went down to nine months (as typical in peacetime), and most of them were finished building in six months... And even if the Nazis don't get the new subs in time, they could make propaganda with them, even using real photos.) One important factor I haven't used yet: Since early 1942, the Germans have moved most of the Luftwaffe back from the East to the West. Meaning it'll be able to protect the Bay of Biscay from now on - probably good enough so the WAllies will never gain air superiority here. Good for the subs starting here, esp. those from Brest. I'm looking at two specific phases: 1) until the capitulation of Gibraltar (which coincides roughly with the time when the US will have learned the basics about protecting their convoys), and 2) until Bradley's capitulation in Morocco on Halloween this year. The last two months of 1942 I'll cover in a later post. The first one will include TTL's equivalent of Drumbeat/Paukenschlag. Which opens the question of how many type IX subs they'll have ready. Dönitz had wanted twelve, IOTL he just got six. Which still caused much damage. So I've checked the subs: Of type IX/A, only one was still active around that time (two more were used for training). Of type IX/B, eight were active, up to five more may survive thanks to Enigma. Of type IX/C, eight are still active, three had been sunk. Those of types IX/C-40 and IX/D wouldn't be ready, probably. Theoretically I might use a number of those yet in training, but if these weren't used IOTL, why would they use them here under better conditions? So realistically, Dönitz will be able to use up to sixteen, or 24 if none of those were sunk, which is close to ASB though. Let's say he has twenty and uses half of them. Doesn't mean they'll sink two thirds more, because after all they'll still have to find targets, and the easy targets will be sunk first. But 50% more might work. Which means altogether 3 million BRT, plus a bit in other places. Phase 1: * The Germans will lose 14 subs with about 620 men. A bit lower than IOTL. IOTL they sunk 2.75 million BRT during this time - let's say 4.1 millions. Phase 2: * The Germans will lose 55 subs with about 2,000 men. A bit higher than IOTL (random influences). But consider that they have still all those subs the Allies didn't sink. IOTL the wolfpacks sunk 2 million BRT during this time - let's say 3 millions instead. Note: I'm neither counting ships which were just damaged nor those sunk by other means (planes, warships, mines - the longer the war took, the smaller that share was anyway). I want to be on the safe side here. So they hit OTL target of 700,000 per month about all the time. Not however the probably more realistic target of 1 million or 1.3 even. I'll have to calculate how much of a share of all ships going to Britain that'd be - roughly 15% at least, I estimate. Happy Halloween! (Or as Mr. Thomas Anderson from those other AH forums would put it, "the over-commercialized American pumpkin festival" ;-) |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Oct 31, 2024 9:48:12 GMT
For the beginning, a Stalin quote from TTL, from when he and the Axis dismembered Turkey in mid-1942: "Больной человек Европы сдох." (Pronounced: Bolnoy chelovek Yevropy sdokh; meaning: "The Sick Man of Europe has croaked") Which reminds me of Guderian and Hoth who fought with their panzers in Turkey ITTL. They'll be separated after this: One of them will go to Syria/Palestine, the other one to Mesopotamia. Any suggestions who should go where? Back to the submarine war. stevep : * Cancelling the strategic bombing campaign? That'd make TTL at least better in some regard. However, we'll have to consider that Germany will move the Luftwaffe ASAP to the West. Which'll also mean that they can guard the Bay of Biscay as soon as the WAllies will try to find and bomb the subs when they come and leave. * Yes, the WAllies will have some more resources available... I'll have to consider that when I'm crunching the numbers. * Oh, some German subs managed to leave again, despite of the current AND the WAllies. * Churchill may still fear an invasion. The troops in Britain shouldn't be weaker than IOTL. And FDR is planning - at least initially - a long-term invasion over the Channel. Many people cling to ideas they like even if others can see that the new facts have made the formerly good idea a bad idea. You have to believe me that FDR would be that kind of person - it's not for sure after all -, at least for some time.
(One important number to remember: It could well take two and a half years for a German sub from the day it was ordered to the day its crew had finished training and was ready to go forth and strike at Allied ships. Which'd mean that until early 1943, they'll probably only have those ordered pre-PoD. However, I expect that - given how scarce resources were in Nazi Germany - that as soon as they get more of them, like in B-L 2, bottlenecks in production will disappear, which might help. If the time between order and laydown went down to nine months (as typical in peacetime), and most of them were finished building in six months... And even if the Nazis don't get the new subs in time, they could make propaganda with them, even using real photos.) One important factor I haven't used yet: Since early 1942, the Germans have moved most of the Luftwaffe back from the East to the West. Meaning it'll be able to protect the Bay of Biscay from now on - probably good enough so the WAllies will never gain air superiority here. Good for the subs starting here, esp. those from Brest. I'm looking at two specific phases: 1) until the capitulation of Gibraltar (which coincides roughly with the time when the US will have learned the basics about protecting their convoys), and 2) until Bradley's capitulation in Morocco on Halloween this year. The last two months of 1942 I'll cover in a later post. The first one will include TTL's equivalent of Drumbeat/Paukenschlag. Which opens the question of how many type IX subs they'll have ready. Dönitz had wanted twelve, IOTL he just got six. Which still caused much damage. So I've checked the subs: Of type IX/A, only one was still active around that time (two more were used for training). Of type IX/B, eight were active, up to five more may survive thanks to Enigma. Of type IX/C, eight are still active, three had been sunk. Those of types IX/C-40 and IX/D wouldn't be ready, probably. Theoretically I might use a number of those yet in training, but if these weren't used IOTL, why would they use them here under better conditions? So realistically, Dönitz will be able to use up to sixteen, or 24 if none of those were sunk, which is close to ASB though. Let's say he has twenty and uses half of them. Doesn't mean they'll sink two thirds more, because after all they'll still have to find targets, and the easy targets will be sunk first. But 50% more might work. Which means altogether 3 million BRT, plus a bit in other places. Phase 1: * The Germans will lose 14 subs with about 620 men. A bit lower than IOTL. IOTL they sunk 2.75 million BRT during this time - let's say 4.1 millions. Phase 2: * The Germans will lose 55 subs with about 2,000 men. A bit higher than IOTL (random influences). But consider that they have still all those subs the Allies didn't sink. IOTL the wolfpacks sunk 2 million BRT during this time - let's say 3 millions instead. Note: I'm neither counting ships which were just damaged nor those sunk by other means (planes, warships, mines - the longer the war took, the smaller that share was anyway). I want to be on the safe side here. So they hit OTL target of 700,000 per month about all the time. Not however the probably more realistic target of 1 million or 1.3 even. I'll have to calculate how much of a share of all ships going to Britain that'd be - roughly 15% at least, I estimate. Happy Halloween! (Or as Mr. Thomas Anderson from those other AH forums would put it, "the over-commercialized American pumpkin festival" ;-)
Running late for work so short reply. Yes definitely if Donitz is able to persuade Hitler/Goring of the importance of the Bay of Biscay then there would be a lot more air cover of U boats in transit there. Which would probably mean convoys coming up from W Africa would need to stay further from shore. However there will still, once the allies get their act together a lot of effort to sink U boats and protect convoys elsewhere. The higher shipping losses and supply status are likely to force more attention to the war against the U biars and also make the US see sense about a cross channel invasion in the face of a Germany not being worn down in the USSR.
Not talking about the strategic bombing campaigns being curtailed quickly but it would be a logical answer in those circumstances.
PS back now and a bit more time. I doubt the allies will give up on the strategic bombing campaign while the war goes on unless there are insufficient supplies getting across the Atlantic to support it but their going to be a lot more expensive, probably especially the American one, unless the latter lasts long enough for longer range escort aircraft to become available in large numbers. If the war goes on long enough, but I don't think it will, it could start seeing the Luftwaffe being worn down but its unlikely to be fast enough to have any impact.
Are you referring to the Allied landings in Morocco as being in 42 or 43? I know historically they were in 42 but given the worsened situation and the US deploying forces to the ME - in some significant numbers by the sound of it - I can't see that being practical, even without the worse situation in the U boat war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 2, 2024 18:09:27 GMT
For the beginning, a Stalin quote from TTL, from when he and the Axis dismembered Turkey in mid-1942: "Больной человек Европы сдох." (Pronounced: Bolnoy chelovek Yevropy sdokh; meaning: "The Sick Man of Europe has croaked") Which reminds me of Guderian and Hoth who fought with their panzers in Turkey ITTL. They'll be separated after this: One of them will go to Syria/Palestine, the other one to Mesopotamia. Any suggestions who should go where? Back to the submarine war. stevep : * Cancelling the strategic bombing campaign? That'd make TTL at least better in some regard. However, we'll have to consider that Germany will move the Luftwaffe ASAP to the West. Which'll also mean that they can guard the Bay of Biscay as soon as the WAllies will try to find and bomb the subs when they come and leave. * Yes, the WAllies will have some more resources available... I'll have to consider that when I'm crunching the numbers. * Oh, some German subs managed to leave again, despite of the current AND the WAllies. * Churchill may still fear an invasion. The troops in Britain shouldn't be weaker than IOTL. And FDR is planning - at least initially - a long-term invasion over the Channel. Many people cling to ideas they like even if others can see that the new facts have made the formerly good idea a bad idea. You have to believe me that FDR would be that kind of person - it's not for sure after all -, at least for some time.
(One important number to remember: It could well take two and a half years for a German sub from the day it was ordered to the day its crew had finished training and was ready to go forth and strike at Allied ships. Which'd mean that until early 1943, they'll probably only have those ordered pre-PoD. However, I expect that - given how scarce resources were in Nazi Germany - that as soon as they get more of them, like in B-L 2, bottlenecks in production will disappear, which might help. If the time between order and laydown went down to nine months (as typical in peacetime), and most of them were finished building in six months... And even if the Nazis don't get the new subs in time, they could make propaganda with them, even using real photos.) One important factor I haven't used yet: Since early 1942, the Germans have moved most of the Luftwaffe back from the East to the West. Meaning it'll be able to protect the Bay of Biscay from now on - probably good enough so the WAllies will never gain air superiority here. Good for the subs starting here, esp. those from Brest. I'm looking at two specific phases: 1) until the capitulation of Gibraltar (which coincides roughly with the time when the US will have learned the basics about protecting their convoys), and 2) until Bradley's capitulation in Morocco on Halloween this year. The last two months of 1942 I'll cover in a later post. The first one will include TTL's equivalent of Drumbeat/Paukenschlag. Which opens the question of how many type IX subs they'll have ready. Dönitz had wanted twelve, IOTL he just got six. Which still caused much damage. So I've checked the subs: Of type IX/A, only one was still active around that time (two more were used for training). Of type IX/B, eight were active, up to five more may survive thanks to Enigma. Of type IX/C, eight are still active, three had been sunk. Those of types IX/C-40 and IX/D wouldn't be ready, probably. Theoretically I might use a number of those yet in training, but if these weren't used IOTL, why would they use them here under better conditions? So realistically, Dönitz will be able to use up to sixteen, or 24 if none of those were sunk, which is close to ASB though. Let's say he has twenty and uses half of them. Doesn't mean they'll sink two thirds more, because after all they'll still have to find targets, and the easy targets will be sunk first. But 50% more might work. Which means altogether 3 million BRT, plus a bit in other places. Phase 1: * The Germans will lose 14 subs with about 620 men. A bit lower than IOTL. IOTL they sunk 2.75 million BRT during this time - let's say 4.1 millions. Phase 2: * The Germans will lose 55 subs with about 2,000 men. A bit higher than IOTL (random influences). But consider that they have still all those subs the Allies didn't sink. IOTL the wolfpacks sunk 2 million BRT during this time - let's say 3 millions instead. Note: I'm neither counting ships which were just damaged nor those sunk by other means (planes, warships, mines - the longer the war took, the smaller that share was anyway). I want to be on the safe side here. So they hit OTL target of 700,000 per month about all the time. Not however the probably more realistic target of 1 million or 1.3 even. I'll have to calculate how much of a share of all ships going to Britain that'd be - roughly 15% at least, I estimate. Happy Halloween! (Or as Mr. Thomas Anderson from those other AH forums would put it, "the over-commercialized American pumpkin festival" ;-)
Running late for work so short reply. Yes definitely if Donitz is able to persuade Hitler/Goring of the importance of the Bay of Biscay then there would be a lot more air cover of U boats in transit there. Which would probably mean convoys coming up from W Africa would need to stay further from shore. However there will still, once the allies get their act together a lot of effort to sink U boats and protect convoys elsewhere. The higher shipping losses and supply status are likely to force more attention to the war against the U biars and also make the US see sense about a cross channel invasion in the face of a Germany not being worn down in the USSR.
Not talking about the strategic bombing campaigns being curtailed quickly but it would be a logical answer in those circumstances.
PS back now and a bit more time. I doubt the allies will give up on the strategic bombing campaign while the war goes on unless there are insufficient supplies getting across the Atlantic to support it but their going to be a lot more expensive, probably especially the American one, unless the latter lasts long enough for longer range escort aircraft to become available in large numbers. If the war goes on long enough, but I don't think it will, it could start seeing the Luftwaffe being worn down but its unlikely to be fast enough to have any impact.
Are you referring to the Allied landings in Morocco as being in 42 or 43? I know historically they were in 42 but given the worsened situation and the US deploying forces to the ME - in some significant numbers by the sound of it - I can't see that being practical, even without the worse situation in the U boat war.
AFAIK the military thought that before a cross-channel invasion could happen, they'd have to control the Med. With Morocco lost in late 1942, and strong German forces coming from Turkey, this seems far away. Definitely past 1944, and after his defeat, even FDR's reelection doesn't seem like a safe bet anymore.
Yes, in retrospect, strategic bombing was wrong, esp. since the so-called "terror attacks" by the WAllies rather made the Germans angrier than desperate. The Nazis should've decorated "Bomber Harris" for inadvertently helping them. But with the incomplete knowledge of that time, it probably looked logical. Or did some prominent people at that time criticize the concept?
And yes, I wanted the landings in Morocco happen in mid-1942. That's be rushed, but FDR wants a victory to show for the midterm elections in early November 1942. In mid-1942, the US Army already had 3 million men - even if you calculate five men for logistics and other services for every fighter, this still gives them a combat strength of 500,000. Hence, four US divisions on Moroccan ground initially and two more later doesn't seem too much. It's the logical consequence of "Germany First", and they decided that both IOTL and ITTL pre-Barbarossa.
Regarding Guderian and Hoth, I think I'll send Guderian to Kurdistan/Iraq and Hoth to the Levant.
Now again back to the submarine war.
Initially I thought: As soon as the Nazis have B-L 2, they have enough resources for building many subs. Enough to win. Problem solved.
Then I double-checked the process from ordering a new sub to sending it against the enemy. Usually this took two and a half years! Since B-L 2 happens on November 28th in 1941, that'd be too late to end the war in mid-1943. And at that time, the WAllies may simply have become too strong, with all their Liberty ships and Liberator bombers and whatnot.
But we may shorten the time somewhat if we have Dönitz order lots and lots of new subs even earlier. Enough to get the 300 he thinks necessary for winning the war, plus some more for the losses to be expected, plus some more to be on the safe side. Ordering subs doesn't cost more resources than the paper the order's written on. Of course the responsible people at the German wharves will consider this as an air castle, but they can't exactly tell him that (let alone the "führer"), and half a year later, he'll look like a great visionary instead. (And you know how often people built air castles in Nazi Germany.)
Which leaves the question of course: How many subs can the Germans build, even if they have the resources and the men to man them? There's only that much place in the facilities. Even if you let the workers toil in three shifts.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Nov 3, 2024 10:55:15 GMT
Running late for work so short reply. Yes definitely if Donitz is able to persuade Hitler/Goring of the importance of the Bay of Biscay then there would be a lot more air cover of U boats in transit there. Which would probably mean convoys coming up from W Africa would need to stay further from shore. However there will still, once the allies get their act together a lot of effort to sink U boats and protect convoys elsewhere. The higher shipping losses and supply status are likely to force more attention to the war against the U biars and also make the US see sense about a cross channel invasion in the face of a Germany not being worn down in the USSR.
Not talking about the strategic bombing campaigns being curtailed quickly but it would be a logical answer in those circumstances.
PS back now and a bit more time. I doubt the allies will give up on the strategic bombing campaign while the war goes on unless there are insufficient supplies getting across the Atlantic to support it but their going to be a lot more expensive, probably especially the American one, unless the latter lasts long enough for longer range escort aircraft to become available in large numbers. If the war goes on long enough, but I don't think it will, it could start seeing the Luftwaffe being worn down but its unlikely to be fast enough to have any impact.
Are you referring to the Allied landings in Morocco as being in 42 or 43? I know historically they were in 42 but given the worsened situation and the US deploying forces to the ME - in some significant numbers by the sound of it - I can't see that being practical, even without the worse situation in the U boat war.
AFAIK the military thought that before a cross-channel invasion could happen, they'd have to control the Med. With Morocco lost in late 1942, and strong German forces coming from Turkey, this seems far away. Definitely past 1944, and after his defeat, even FDR's reelection doesn't seem like a safe bet anymore.
Yes, in retrospect, strategic bombing was wrong, esp. since the so-called "terror attacks" by the WAllies rather made the Germans angrier than desperate. The Nazis should've decorated "Bomber Harris" for inadvertently helping them. But with the incomplete knowledge of that time, it probably looked logical. Or did some prominent people at that time criticize the concept?
And yes, I wanted the landings in Morocco happen in mid-1942. That's be rushed, but FDR wants a victory to show for the midterm elections in early November 1942. In mid-1942, the US Army already had 3 million men - even if you calculate five men for logistics and other services for every fighter, this still gives them a combat strength of 500,000. Hence, four US divisions on Moroccan ground initially and two more later doesn't seem too much. It's the logical consequence of "Germany First", and they decided that both IOTL and ITTL pre-Barbarossa.
Regarding Guderian and Hoth, I think I'll send Guderian to Kurdistan/Iraq and Hoth to the Levant.
Now again back to the submarine war.
Initially I thought: As soon as the Nazis have B-L 2, they have enough resources for building many subs. Enough to win. Problem solved.
Then I double-checked the process from ordering a new sub to sending it against the enemy. Usually this took two and a half years! Since B-L 2 happens on November 28th in 1941, that'd be too late to end the war in mid-1943. And at that time, the WAllies may simply have become too strong, with all their Liberty ships and Liberator bombers and whatnot.
But we may shorten the time somewhat if we have Dönitz order lots and lots of new subs even earlier. Enough to get the 300 he thinks necessary for winning the war, plus some more for the losses to be expected, plus some more to be on the safe side. Ordering subs doesn't cost more resources than the paper the order's written on. Of course the responsible people at the German wharves will consider this as an air castle, but they can't exactly tell him that (let alone the "führer"), and half a year later, he'll look like a great visionary instead. (And you know how often people built air castles in Nazi Germany.)
Which leaves the question of course: How many subs can the Germans build, even if they have the resources and the men to man them? There's only that much place in the facilities. Even if you let the workers toil in three shifts.
The reason I question a 42 invasion of Morocco, especially earlier than OTL in TTL is because I can't see the resources being available in anything like that time period. The US Army might have a head figure of 3M - don't forget that at this state there was no USAF, it was the army air corp so its people would be included in its totals - but I wonder how many would actually be decently trained and equipped only about 7-8 months after the US was actually brought into the conflict. With things going worse in the ME requiring US forces required there and also not well in the Pacific where there will also be larger demands where are the men and equipment coming from. Coupled with this is the desire to have both air forces in Britain for the bombing campaign and ground forces to defend against a possible German invasion attempt.
To give a comparison when WWI ended in an armistice in Nov 1918 there were about 1.8M US troops in France/Belgium, just overtaking the British total in the same theatre. However - in part because the US had expanded its small initial army so much and so quickly as well as the allies supply much of their equipment US units in France tended to need several months additional training before they were committed to the front for full scale action on their own. This meant a lot of those men in France never saw any real action on the western front. Admittedly the US was better prepared in 1941 than it was in 1917 for expansion in part because of lessons learnt but this was about 18 months after the US dow rather than about 8.
Also all those forces have to be shipped to the theatres their fighting with and supplies. For the ME, in which no US forces fought OTL that means a supply route around Africa which will take up a lot of shipping and other resources, even ignoring losses when the U boat threat is markedly more dangerous and likely to be getting worse as allied intelligence will be aware of some aspects at least of Dönitz expansion of the U boat arms. I don't know what's happening in the Pacific but its likely to be worse than OTL and will again be a serious drain on resources both in terms of losses and also of the sheer amount of shipping needed to carry items over such vast distances.
There will be some savings as the allies are no longer seeking to supply the Soviets so no convoys fighting via the Arctic routes to Murmansk, using of Soviet flagged/crewed ships to Vladivostok or shipping goods to Iran. However I suspect this will be less than the extra demand because of heavy losses and increased commitment in the worsening allied situation.
Also as far as I'm aware the US didn't want to get involved in N Africa OTL and Torch was only agreed because FDR wanted some sort of US commitment against the European axis and Britain was able to point out the impracticality of US plans for invasions of N France in42 & 43 and the importance of clearing N Africa to free up allied forces tied down there. Here not only is there the a worse military situation but US forces are already heavily engaged in Iraq. You should be aware of US plans for operations Roundup and Sledgehammer.
The US especially has huge military potential but that takes time, both in troop numbers and equipment to build up as well as to win the U boat war successfully enough to get the forces and supplies to where their needed. I can't really see the allies being able to organise a suitable force for a serious invasion of NW Africa before 1943 given all the issues. Let alone as OTL Torch showed the need for battle experience, especially for the US Army. There could be some troops and officers switched over from forces in Iraq although that would weaken the units there, which are likely to be under heavy pressure but most of the force will be green, Also will the allied position being worse its markedly more likely that Vichy France will resist and definitely the Axis will send forces into Tunisia to drive west as OTL but with greater numbers without a crisis in the eastern front and also no allied army driving westwards through Libya putting the Axis in a pincer.
Sorry to go to such length but any such landings sounds like they will be a rash gamble that will backfire badly.
In terms of the strategic bombing campaign there was opposition, both morally and practically but they tended to be drowned out by the pro-bombing factions. This was partly political in that until Italy was invaded OTL it was the only real way we could take the war to the Axis and was seen as important for morale rather than Britain especially sitting solely on the defensive. Also there was force politics in that both the RAF and the USAAC had committed their identity very much to strategic bombing and were arguing it was a 'cheap' way in human terms of winning such a war rather than the butcher's bill of WWI's western front which there was a strong fear of having repeated. Also for Britain at least Churchill was always eager for offensive action and seems to have been misinformed by his scientific adviser and evaluations from the RAF which over-stated considerably the accuracy and effectiveness of BC, especially before the final stages of the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 6, 2024 4:38:53 GMT
AFAIK the military thought that before a cross-channel invasion could happen, they'd have to control the Med. With Morocco lost in late 1942, and strong German forces coming from Turkey, this seems far away. Definitely past 1944, and after his defeat, even FDR's reelection doesn't seem like a safe bet anymore.
Yes, in retrospect, strategic bombing was wrong, esp. since the so-called "terror attacks" by the WAllies rather made the Germans angrier than desperate. The Nazis should've decorated "Bomber Harris" for inadvertently helping them. But with the incomplete knowledge of that time, it probably looked logical. Or did some prominent people at that time criticize the concept?
And yes, I wanted the landings in Morocco happen in mid-1942. That's be rushed, but FDR wants a victory to show for the midterm elections in early November 1942. In mid-1942, the US Army already had 3 million men - even if you calculate five men for logistics and other services for every fighter, this still gives them a combat strength of 500,000. Hence, four US divisions on Moroccan ground initially and two more later doesn't seem too much. It's the logical consequence of "Germany First", and they decided that both IOTL and ITTL pre-Barbarossa.
Regarding Guderian and Hoth, I think I'll send Guderian to Kurdistan/Iraq and Hoth to the Levant.
Now again back to the submarine war.
Initially I thought: As soon as the Nazis have B-L 2, they have enough resources for building many subs. Enough to win. Problem solved.
Then I double-checked the process from ordering a new sub to sending it against the enemy. Usually this took two and a half years! Since B-L 2 happens on November 28th in 1941, that'd be too late to end the war in mid-1943. And at that time, the WAllies may simply have become too strong, with all their Liberty ships and Liberator bombers and whatnot.
But we may shorten the time somewhat if we have Dönitz order lots and lots of new subs even earlier. Enough to get the 300 he thinks necessary for winning the war, plus some more for the losses to be expected, plus some more to be on the safe side. Ordering subs doesn't cost more resources than the paper the order's written on. Of course the responsible people at the German wharves will consider this as an air castle, but they can't exactly tell him that (let alone the "führer"), and half a year later, he'll look like a great visionary instead. (And you know how often people built air castles in Nazi Germany.)
Which leaves the question of course: How many subs can the Germans build, even if they have the resources and the men to man them? There's only that much place in the facilities. Even if you let the workers toil in three shifts.
The reason I question a 42 invasion of Morocco, especially earlier than OTL in TTL is because I can't see the resources being available in anything like that time period. The US Army might have a head figure of 3M - don't forget that at this state there was no USAF, it was the army air corp so its people would be included in its totals - but I wonder how many would actually be decently trained and equipped only about 7-8 months after the US was actually brought into the conflict. With things going worse in the ME requiring US forces required there and also not well in the Pacific where there will also be larger demands where are the men and equipment coming from. Coupled with this is the desire to have both air forces in Britain for the bombing campaign and ground forces to defend against a possible German invasion attempt.
To give a comparison when WWI ended in an armistice in Nov 1918 there were about 1.8M US troops in France/Belgium, just overtaking the British total in the same theatre. However - in part because the US had expanded its small initial army so much and so quickly as well as the allies supply much of their equipment US units in France tended to need several months additional training before they were committed to the front for full scale action on their own. This meant a lot of those men in France never saw any real action on the western front. Admittedly the US was better prepared in 1941 than it was in 1917 for expansion in part because of lessons learnt but this was about 18 months after the US dow rather than about 8.
Also all those forces have to be shipped to the theatres their fighting with and supplies. For the ME, in which no US forces fought OTL that means a supply route around Africa which will take up a lot of shipping and other resources, even ignoring losses when the U boat threat is markedly more dangerous and likely to be getting worse as allied intelligence will be aware of some aspects at least of Dönitz expansion of the U boat arms. I don't know what's happening in the Pacific but its likely to be worse than OTL and will again be a serious drain on resources both in terms of losses and also of the sheer amount of shipping needed to carry items over such vast distances.
There will be some savings as the allies are no longer seeking to supply the Soviets so no convoys fighting via the Arctic routes to Murmansk, using of Soviet flagged/crewed ships to Vladivostok or shipping goods to Iran. However I suspect this will be less than the extra demand because of heavy losses and increased commitment in the worsening allied situation.
Also as far as I'm aware the US didn't want to get involved in N Africa OTL and Torch was only agreed because FDR wanted some sort of US commitment against the European axis and Britain was able to point out the impracticality of US plans for invasions of N France in42 & 43 and the importance of clearing N Africa to free up allied forces tied down there. Here not only is there the a worse military situation but US forces are already heavily engaged in Iraq. You should be aware of US plans for operations Roundup and Sledgehammer.
The US especially has huge military potential but that takes time, both in troop numbers and equipment to build up as well as to win the U boat war successfully enough to get the forces and supplies to where their needed. I can't really see the allies being able to organise a suitable force for a serious invasion of NW Africa before 1943 given all the issues. Let alone as OTL Torch showed the need for battle experience, especially for the US Army. There could be some troops and officers switched over from forces in Iraq although that would weaken the units there, which are likely to be under heavy pressure but most of the force will be green, Also will the allied position being worse its markedly more likely that Vichy France will resist and definitely the Axis will send forces into Tunisia to drive west as OTL but with greater numbers without a crisis in the eastern front and also no allied army driving westwards through Libya putting the Axis in a pincer.
Sorry to go to such length but any such landings sounds like they will be a rash gamble that will backfire badly.
In terms of the strategic bombing campaign there was opposition, both morally and practically but they tended to be drowned out by the pro-bombing factions. This was partly political in that until Italy was invaded OTL it was the only real way we could take the war to the Axis and was seen as important for morale rather than Britain especially sitting solely on the defensive. Also there was force politics in that both the RAF and the USAAC had committed their identity very much to strategic bombing and were arguing it was a 'cheap' way in human terms of winning such a war rather than the butcher's bill of WWI's western front which there was a strong fear of having repeated. Also for Britain at least Churchill was always eager for offensive action and seems to have been misinformed by his scientific adviser and evaluations from the RAF which over-stated considerably the accuracy and effectiveness of BC, especially before the final stages of the war.
You have some good points there, Steve-O.
When the Army Air Forces were created (mid-1941 - I think this wouldn't change much), they had 152,125 personnel according to WP.
How many fighting men do we have to calculate for each plane? Five? Even with 3,000 airplanes hunting German subs, that wouldn't add up to that much. We mustn't make the mistake to deduct the full strength of the air forces from the US Army fighting strength.
As said, when "Freedom" starts, the US have four divisions there, that's less than 100,000 men. Their initial strength in Iraq might be not that much bigger. Well, FDR and Churchill did have a "Germany First" strategy...
The TL is still pretty rough. So far I haven't decided when exactly Spain invades/takes Gibraltar (just "spring 1942", although I tend to early spring), when Ike gets transferred to the Gulf (just "after Gibraltar is taken"), and when the WAllies will invade Morocco (just "second half of 1942" - although I like the idea of starting it on July 4th). The capitulation of Casablanca is fixed and easy to remember, Halloween 1942. But before that... at first they'll decide to invade Morocco, then Gibraltar is effectively lost (troops being besieged in the Rock don't really project control), then the real invasion of Turkey starts. They might be much like "We have decided for Morocco, now we have to pull it through!" Doesn't make a good impression if the leader waffles in such a dangerous situation.
There is a big kerfuffle in Kurdistan to say the least, since at least some Kurds with Communist sympathies (or rather for anyone who isn't of the people who have been oppressing them for centuries) might be confused for what reason they're now fighting on the "Reich"'s side. This kerfuffle will bind the Wehrmacht down for some time. Because I'm willing to give them the oil in Kurdistan - but no more! So I expect that they will duke it out in central Iraq for some time, but in the end, things will settle down with a partition: The Kurdish north will be in the German camp, the Shiite south in the Anglosphere's, and Baghdad a buffer state in between. For some time, it might be that the Wehrmacht will get further south, though. (Reminds me a bit of the Korea War.) But that much is sure: When the invasion of Morocco starts (let alone when it's planned), the US forces in Iraq aren't yet "heavily engaged".
(I really have to make some maps. Sorry I didn't so far.)
The US didn't really want to go to N Africa? Could be, but I never heard of that - where does it say that?
Regarding the US troops being not trained: That's true, but ITTL the Brits would be lacking troops with actual combat experience against the Wehrmacht as well. After Dunkirk, maybe a quarter of what they had IOTL. How long until they'd have trained adequate replacements? - At some points, the US troops will have to have their "baptizing in fire" anyway, so or so.
In Asia, the Japanese have advanced somewhat more, but only gained a few border areas of India before the monsoon started, which makes further offensives impossible. Also, IOTL the so much praised Japanese troops often suffered high losses on Pacific islands - as in, five times higher than the Allied ones.
Good point about how to get the US troops into Iraq. I'll also have to decide how much of that will be sunk by German subs. Not the bigger part of it, but some ships for sure. As said, if the Nazis don't get the whole of Iraq, it's because they'll also need time to get their troops there. Good parts of the Turkish railway system were still single-track, although Operation Todt will try to fix this, with forced labor if necessary.
The really big question is: What would FDR and Churchill really do? Would they give up continental Europe, plus North Africa and the Middle East? With the image damage that'd mean for the Anglosphere in the whole world? Would FDR's facade of optimism break down, or he himself - and then what, replace him by Wallace? Or would he try something too daring, like ITTL? (And yes, I did intend that the invasion was rushed, which didn't help of course.)
It's like with Sherlock Holmes: Sort out what's impossible, and the improbable has to be the solution. Although we still seem to disagree what exactly is impossible here.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Nov 6, 2024 16:28:02 GMT
The reason I question a 42 invasion of Morocco, especially earlier than OTL in TTL is because I can't see the resources being available in anything like that time period. The US Army might have a head figure of 3M - don't forget that at this state there was no USAF, it was the army air corp so its people would be included in its totals - but I wonder how many would actually be decently trained and equipped only about 7-8 months after the US was actually brought into the conflict. With things going worse in the ME requiring US forces required there and also not well in the Pacific where there will also be larger demands where are the men and equipment coming from. Coupled with this is the desire to have both air forces in Britain for the bombing campaign and ground forces to defend against a possible German invasion attempt.
To give a comparison when WWI ended in an armistice in Nov 1918 there were about 1.8M US troops in France/Belgium, just overtaking the British total in the same theatre. However - in part because the US had expanded its small initial army so much and so quickly as well as the allies supply much of their equipment US units in France tended to need several months additional training before they were committed to the front for full scale action on their own. This meant a lot of those men in France never saw any real action on the western front. Admittedly the US was better prepared in 1941 than it was in 1917 for expansion in part because of lessons learnt but this was about 18 months after the US dow rather than about 8.
Also all those forces have to be shipped to the theatres their fighting with and supplies. For the ME, in which no US forces fought OTL that means a supply route around Africa which will take up a lot of shipping and other resources, even ignoring losses when the U boat threat is markedly more dangerous and likely to be getting worse as allied intelligence will be aware of some aspects at least of Dönitz expansion of the U boat arms. I don't know what's happening in the Pacific but its likely to be worse than OTL and will again be a serious drain on resources both in terms of losses and also of the sheer amount of shipping needed to carry items over such vast distances.
There will be some savings as the allies are no longer seeking to supply the Soviets so no convoys fighting via the Arctic routes to Murmansk, using of Soviet flagged/crewed ships to Vladivostok or shipping goods to Iran. However I suspect this will be less than the extra demand because of heavy losses and increased commitment in the worsening allied situation.
Also as far as I'm aware the US didn't want to get involved in N Africa OTL and Torch was only agreed because FDR wanted some sort of US commitment against the European axis and Britain was able to point out the impracticality of US plans for invasions of N France in42 & 43 and the importance of clearing N Africa to free up allied forces tied down there. Here not only is there the a worse military situation but US forces are already heavily engaged in Iraq. You should be aware of US plans for operations Roundup and Sledgehammer.
The US especially has huge military potential but that takes time, both in troop numbers and equipment to build up as well as to win the U boat war successfully enough to get the forces and supplies to where their needed. I can't really see the allies being able to organise a suitable force for a serious invasion of NW Africa before 1943 given all the issues. Let alone as OTL Torch showed the need for battle experience, especially for the US Army. There could be some troops and officers switched over from forces in Iraq although that would weaken the units there, which are likely to be under heavy pressure but most of the force will be green, Also will the allied position being worse its markedly more likely that Vichy France will resist and definitely the Axis will send forces into Tunisia to drive west as OTL but with greater numbers without a crisis in the eastern front and also no allied army driving westwards through Libya putting the Axis in a pincer.
Sorry to go to such length but any such landings sounds like they will be a rash gamble that will backfire badly.
In terms of the strategic bombing campaign there was opposition, both morally and practically but they tended to be drowned out by the pro-bombing factions. This was partly political in that until Italy was invaded OTL it was the only real way we could take the war to the Axis and was seen as important for morale rather than Britain especially sitting solely on the defensive. Also there was force politics in that both the RAF and the USAAC had committed their identity very much to strategic bombing and were arguing it was a 'cheap' way in human terms of winning such a war rather than the butcher's bill of WWI's western front which there was a strong fear of having repeated. Also for Britain at least Churchill was always eager for offensive action and seems to have been misinformed by his scientific adviser and evaluations from the RAF which over-stated considerably the accuracy and effectiveness of BC, especially before the final stages of the war.
You have some good points there, Steve-O.
When the Army Air Forces were created (mid-1941 - I think this wouldn't change much), they had 152,125 personnel according to WP.
How many fighting men do we have to calculate for each plane? Five? Even with 3,000 airplanes hunting German subs, that wouldn't add up to that much. We mustn't make the mistake to deduct the full strength of the air forces from the US Army fighting strength.
As said, when "Freedom" starts, the US have four divisions there, that's less than 100,000 men. Their initial strength in Iraq might be not that much bigger. Well, FDR and Churchill did have a "Germany First" strategy...
The TL is still pretty rough. So far I haven't decided when exactly Spain invades/takes Gibraltar (just "spring 1942", although I tend to early spring), when Ike gets transferred to the Gulf (just "after Gibraltar is taken"), and when the WAllies will invade Morocco (just "second half of 1942" - although I like the idea of starting it on July 4th). The capitulation of Casablanca is fixed and easy to remember, Halloween 1942. But before that... at first they'll decide to invade Morocco, then Gibraltar is effectively lost (troops being besieged in the Rock don't really project control), then the real invasion of Turkey starts. They might be much like "We have decided for Morocco, now we have to pull it through!" Doesn't make a good impression if the leader waffles in such a dangerous situation.
There is a big kerfuffle in Kurdistan to say the least, since at least some Kurds with Communist sympathies (or rather for anyone who isn't of the people who have been oppressing them for centuries) might be confused for what reason they're now fighting on the "Reich"'s side. This kerfuffle will bind the Wehrmacht down for some time. Because I'm willing to give them the oil in Kurdistan - but no more! So I expect that they will duke it out in central Iraq for some time, but in the end, things will settle down with a partition: The Kurdish north will be in the German camp, the Shiite south in the Anglosphere's, and Baghdad a buffer state in between. For some time, it might be that the Wehrmacht will get further south, though. (Reminds me a bit of the Korea War.) But that much is sure: When the invasion of Morocco starts (let alone when it's planned), the US forces in Iraq aren't yet "heavily engaged".
(I really have to make some maps. Sorry I didn't so far.)
The US didn't really want to go to N Africa? Could be, but I never heard of that - where does it say that?
Regarding the US troops being not trained: That's true, but ITTL the Brits would be lacking troops with actual combat experience against the Wehrmacht as well. After Dunkirk, maybe a quarter of what they had IOTL. How long until they'd have trained adequate replacements? - At some points, the US troops will have to have their "baptizing in fire" anyway, so or so.
In Asia, the Japanese have advanced somewhat more, but only gained a few border areas of India before the monsoon started, which makes further offensives impossible. Also, IOTL the so much praised Japanese troops often suffered high losses on Pacific islands - as in, five times higher than the Allied ones.
Good point about how to get the US troops into Iraq. I'll also have to decide how much of that will be sunk by German subs. Not the bigger part of it, but some ships for sure. As said, if the Nazis don't get the whole of Iraq, it's because they'll also need time to get their troops there. Good parts of the Turkish railway system were still single-track, although Operation Todt will try to fix this, with forced labor if necessary.
The really big question is: What would FDR and Churchill really do? Would they give up continental Europe, plus North Africa and the Middle East? With the image damage that'd mean for the Anglosphere in the whole world? Would FDR's facade of optimism break down, or he himself - and then what, replace him by Wallace? Or would he try something too daring, like ITTL? (And yes, I did intend that the invasion was rushed, which didn't help of course.)
It's like with Sherlock Holmes: Sort out what's impossible, and the improbable has to be the solution. Although we still seem to disagree what exactly is impossible here.
Bit short of time as a multi-player gaming session shortly but some quick responses. a) Don't forget that with the air force its got a much longer tail than the ground units. There's all those ground crew along with people in supply, administration and the like for each aircraft which even for the B-17's when they become available with dwarf the aircrew.
b) In terms of US plans they definitely wanted a frontal attack in N France to advance into Germany as soon as possibly OTL. See Operation Sledgehammer and the related Operation Roundup. That's very much the US way of war. TTL that is less likely because the forces their likely to face would be overwhelming until the British have rebuild a core force for such operations and the US has built a much larger army and supporting infrastructure. As such an operation Torch type move is much more likely but going to be difficult in 42 with the additional losses and limited forces availavle in that period.
c) Good point that the British army will also be lacking in battle experience and fully trained professional forces in TTL as well as the US but that's likely to make them even more cautious.
d) I think the allies would seek to hold Egypt and the canal even more than Iraq. The latter has some oil but with the US and other allied sources that's less important, especially since I think the bulk of this is in the north in this time period and hence already largely in German hands. Plus with the Soviets blocking the way to India due to them holding Iran while they might attack at some point the Germans are extremely unlikely to be allowed to.
In comparison Egypt and the canal allows access to the Med, especially with the loss of Gib and also deny the Axis easy access to the Red Sea and hence Indian Ocean.
Anyway have to keep things short.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 16, 2024 23:25:10 GMT
You have some good points there, Steve-O.
When the Army Air Forces were created (mid-1941 - I think this wouldn't change much), they had 152,125 personnel according to WP.
How many fighting men do we have to calculate for each plane? Five? Even with 3,000 airplanes hunting German subs, that wouldn't add up to that much. We mustn't make the mistake to deduct the full strength of the air forces from the US Army fighting strength.
As said, when "Freedom" starts, the US have four divisions there, that's less than 100,000 men. Their initial strength in Iraq might be not that much bigger. Well, FDR and Churchill did have a "Germany First" strategy...
The TL is still pretty rough. So far I haven't decided when exactly Spain invades/takes Gibraltar (just "spring 1942", although I tend to early spring), when Ike gets transferred to the Gulf (just "after Gibraltar is taken"), and when the WAllies will invade Morocco (just "second half of 1942" - although I like the idea of starting it on July 4th). The capitulation of Casablanca is fixed and easy to remember, Halloween 1942. But before that... at first they'll decide to invade Morocco, then Gibraltar is effectively lost (troops being besieged in the Rock don't really project control), then the real invasion of Turkey starts. They might be much like "We have decided for Morocco, now we have to pull it through!" Doesn't make a good impression if the leader waffles in such a dangerous situation.
There is a big kerfuffle in Kurdistan to say the least, since at least some Kurds with Communist sympathies (or rather for anyone who isn't of the people who have been oppressing them for centuries) might be confused for what reason they're now fighting on the "Reich"'s side. This kerfuffle will bind the Wehrmacht down for some time. Because I'm willing to give them the oil in Kurdistan - but no more! So I expect that they will duke it out in central Iraq for some time, but in the end, things will settle down with a partition: The Kurdish north will be in the German camp, the Shiite south in the Anglosphere's, and Baghdad a buffer state in between. For some time, it might be that the Wehrmacht will get further south, though. (Reminds me a bit of the Korea War.) But that much is sure: When the invasion of Morocco starts (let alone when it's planned), the US forces in Iraq aren't yet "heavily engaged".
(I really have to make some maps. Sorry I didn't so far.)
The US didn't really want to go to N Africa? Could be, but I never heard of that - where does it say that?
Regarding the US troops being not trained: That's true, but ITTL the Brits would be lacking troops with actual combat experience against the Wehrmacht as well. After Dunkirk, maybe a quarter of what they had IOTL. How long until they'd have trained adequate replacements? - At some points, the US troops will have to have their "baptizing in fire" anyway, so or so.
In Asia, the Japanese have advanced somewhat more, but only gained a few border areas of India before the monsoon started, which makes further offensives impossible. Also, IOTL the so much praised Japanese troops often suffered high losses on Pacific islands - as in, five times higher than the Allied ones.
Good point about how to get the US troops into Iraq. I'll also have to decide how much of that will be sunk by German subs. Not the bigger part of it, but some ships for sure. As said, if the Nazis don't get the whole of Iraq, it's because they'll also need time to get their troops there. Good parts of the Turkish railway system were still single-track, although Operation Todt will try to fix this, with forced labor if necessary.
The really big question is: What would FDR and Churchill really do? Would they give up continental Europe, plus North Africa and the Middle East? With the image damage that'd mean for the Anglosphere in the whole world? Would FDR's facade of optimism break down, or he himself - and then what, replace him by Wallace? Or would he try something too daring, like ITTL? (And yes, I did intend that the invasion was rushed, which didn't help of course.)
It's like with Sherlock Holmes: Sort out what's impossible, and the improbable has to be the solution. Although we still seem to disagree what exactly is impossible here.
Bit short of time as a multi-player gaming session shortly but some quick responses. a) Don't forget that with the air force its got a much longer tail than the ground units. There's all those ground crew along with people in supply, administration and the like for each aircraft which even for the B-17's when they become available with dwarf the aircrew. (With the rest of your post I agree.)
We just have to avoid the mistake of counting the tail twice, so to speak. If we stated "3,000 planes with 15,000 men fighting will need 375,000 as a tail. Of the 3 million men in the US Army in total, 700,000 do the fighting. 700,000 minus 375,000 makes...", that'd be this mistake.
But I definitely have to think about the war in the air. So far, I haven't given it much thought. Until the war in the East ends, it'll be pretty much the same as IOTL anyway.
The WAllies made very many attacks on the German sub bases in W France - if the Luftwaffe is back, and the Germans will build fewer panzers and more planes (which goes quicker than building subs...), things will change. And it won't be pretty. But I'll have to work this out.
After reading Timothy Mulligan, I had some more thoughts: * As usual in Nazi Germany, developments of new weapons were very secret. That's why Dönitz only learned of improvements which'd have been good for his subs too only when it was too late. (Hard to change, though.) * Something important about Enigma: It didn't just help the Allies to find subs more easily. Dönitz sent suggestions how to cope with new Allied tactics to his subs per radio... encrypted with guess what. So this'd change too if Enigma was still safe.
|
|
