stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 11, 2024 20:45:12 GMT
This is a scenario I'm been thinking of for a couple of decades on and off. It looks at a possible change in N Africa which might have considerable impacts on the rest of the world.
Operation Compass was initially just a planned short raid against the Italian forces that had crossed the border into Egypt and dug into forts a little distance from the border. It was carried out by two divisions, the 7th Armoured and the 4th Indian, which was a motorised division. OTL it was spectacularly successful with the destruction of virtually all the Italian forces by the attackers who were only about a quarter of their size.
OTL plans to move further into Libya and seek to take advantage of the shock of the Italian defeat were delayed because it was decided to transfer the 4th Indian div to play a major role in the multi-front invasion of Italian East Africa. As a result several weeks were lost while the 6th Australian Div was brought to the region and acclimatized to the conditions. [This might also have involved linking them up to equipment and familiarizing them with that as a while back I learnt that all the ANZ units at this stage of the war got just about everything larger than personal weapons from British sources and when they were sent back toward Australia in response to the Japanese attack the situation was still desperate enough in the ME that Britain took back such equipment to fit new forces coming in to replace them].
Despite this the 2nd stage attack was successful with the occupation of most of Cyrenaica and capture of the bulk of the Italian forces in the region. Casualties were light but a lot of wear and tear occurred on the vehicles especially in the cross country advance to cut off the Italian retreat. Then many of those veterans were among the forces sent to Greece which suffered heavy losses of equipment and men. The relatively small forces left behind were surprised and defeated by Rommel's attack - in part because those were against Hitler's orders and hence not warned against by code readers. Italian E Africa was occupied and pro-Axis revolts in Iraq and then Iran were suppressed along with the occupation of French Syria but you got the start of the desert war that swung backwards and forwards for another 2-3 years.
Question - What I'm asking is whether one relatively small change could have vastly altered the path of the war? What if the 4th Indian hadn't be detached from the WDF [Western Desert Force] and enabled a chance in the dynamics of the war in N Africa.
The reason I did read for the urgency of the operation against Italian East Africa was that to remove it from play would allow US merchant ships to operate in the Red Sea and adjacent areas of the Indian Ocean, which would otherwise be forbidden by their neutrality acts as it would be viewed as a war zone. Not sure how relative this actually was as Britain and its allies had considerable shipping available and the Italian naval forces weren't in a state to do much in the way of attacking shipping. - I have a feeling that as important might be the loss of British Somaliland which incensed Churchill and he wanted that revenged.
TTL changes. - Its decided and Churchill is persuaded that priority should be given to renewing the attack into Libya with an aim to advance to Tripoli. Possibly the 6th Australian division is transferred to a slightly delayed campaign against Italian East Africa? The offensive into Cyrenaica is resumed earlier with similar success but possibly with slightly less wear and tear and since at this stage Greece was still unwilling to accept British forces for fear of the German reaction. As such there is a basis for working up to complete the operation by an advance to Tripoli and the level of success so far persuaded Churchill to support this. It takes a hell of an effort but such a decision is taken and forces are committed before Greece changes its mind about British deployment so forces for such an operation aren't available - although possibly an allied base is established on Crete.
The advance to Tripoli and its capture is achieved by say March/April 41 is completed. In part the Italians are not given time to recover from the earlier defeats and with their fleet reeling from the destruction of much of their fleet - and scattering of the rest - after Taranto so their not in a position to seriously intervene. Possibly Hitler gives up on N Africa or Rommel - or some other German general - is sent there but not in time and with enough forces to manage to avoid the collapse.
Other assumptions are that the Yugoslav coup and the German invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece occur as OTL. That possibly allied forces are already in Crete and its held or alternatively its occupied by the Germans without any marked British/imperial ground or naval losses. That Italian East Africa, totally isolated as it was still falls a bit later than OTL. That any coup in Iraq is defeated as OTL and Iran occupied after Operation Barbarossa opens making the USSR an ally. Probably there's still the German and then British intervention in Syria.
Negatives for Britain in this scenario. a) Probably some loss of prestige in not openly and directly supporting Greece. b) The N African front doesn't become a training ground for forces and also for commanders to learn their skills. As such probably slower development of equipment and of attributes like close ground support for the army. c) If Crete is held then there would be the issue of supplying it in the face of Axis air forces based in an occupied Greece. - Which could be a significant problem with the main ports being on the north coast.
Positives for Britain a) No continued drain of resources for the fighting in N Africa which means that a lot of men and equipment are saved and available for use elsewhere.
b) Probably very little fighting around Malta. With control of Tripoli and neighbouring regions Britain could send equipment and supplies fairly securely by coastal convoy from Egypt then its a relatively short trip to Malta, which would have cover from air units based around Tripoli. Also since Italy doesn't need to supply Axis forces in N Africa there's no great need, other than prestige for attempts to attack Malta, This saves not only ground forces but also the many ships sunk or damaged in the OTL fighting in the Med. c) Both of those mean less stuff to lug to either Egypt or Malta which saves on shipping.
d) Also its likely that assets committed to the Med OTL, most especially the subs who have no supply convoys to attack could be deployed elsewhere. [This does apply to both sides and in this event its unlikely that Hitler would send U boats into the Med so the Germans would have more available for the Atlantic battles]. e) With growing tension in the east I could see some reinforcement of SE Asia and the return of a number of ANZ units that OTL were operating in the ME. Which is likely to at least start prior to any Japanese attack. Also some Indian and British units are likely to be sent east, including probably some armoured units, say a brigade or so along with some aircraft which while probably not the most modern will be markedly better than one ones OTL. f) This is not going to be massive but 2-4 divisions and some air could make the situation in Malaya and places like Rabaul distinctly more difficult. Also probably there would be more substantial forces being built up in Egypt and the ME for either a defence of the Caucasus region if Russia fell or a possible attempt to intervene in the Balkans. Those forces are likely to be available if as OTL the Soviets hold and counter attack in Dec 41 and at the same time Japan attacks to react to the sudden crisis in the east.
As such while a lot could happen, as well as avoiding the continued bloodbath in N Africa and the Med, your likely to see at least Malaya and the western DEI held which would drastically improve the allied position in the war in the Far East and overall. Probably also Burma as Japanese forces are likely to be drawn south while with control of the Indian Ocean Britain can more easily reinforce the region. In turn this would considerably boost the allied position in China as the KMT could get a lot more equipment via the Burma road than they ever could by flying over the hump.
Anyway, two questions please. a) Do you think the above ideas viable? b) If so how do you think the war would go from here?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 12, 2024 2:44:47 GMT
This is a scenario I'm been thinking of for a couple of decades on and off. It looks at a possible change in N Africa which might have considerable impacts on the rest of the world. Operation Compass was initially just a planned short raid against the Italian forces that had crossed the border into Egypt and dug into forts a little distance from the border. It was carried out by two divisions, the 7th Armoured and the 4th Indian, which was a motorised division. OTL it was spectacularly successful with the destruction of virtually all the Italian forces by the attackers who were only about a quarter of their size.
OTL plans to move further into Libya and seek to take advantage of the shock of the Italian defeat were delayed because it was decided to transfer the 4th Indian div to play a major role in the multi-front invasion of Italian East Africa. As a result several weeks were lost while the 6th Australian Div was brought to the region and acclimatized to the conditions. [This might also have involved linking them up to equipment and familiarizing them with that as a while back I learnt that all the ANZ units at this stage of the war got just about everything larger than personal weapons from British sources and when they were sent back toward Australia in response to the Japanese attack the situation was still desperate enough in the ME that Britain took back such equipment to fit new forces coming in to replace them]. Despite this the 2nd stage attack was successful with the occupation of most of Cyrenaica and capture of the bulk of the Italian forces in the region. Casualties were light but a lot of wear and tear occurred on the vehicles especially in the cross country advance to cut off the Italian retreat. Then many of those veterans were among the forces sent to Greece which suffered heavy losses of equipment and men. The relatively small forces left behind were surprised and defeated by Rommel's attack - in part because those were against Hitler's orders and hence not warned against by code readers. Italian E Africa was occupied and pro-Axis revolts in Iraq and then Iran were suppressed along with the occupation of French Syria but you got the start of the desert war that swung backwards and forwards for another 2-3 years. Question - What I'm asking is whether one relatively small change could have vastly altered the path of the war? What if the 4th Indian hadn't be detached from the WDF [Western Desert Force] and enabled a chance in the dynamics of the war in N Africa. The reason I did read for the urgency of the operation against Italian East Africa was that to remove it from play would allow US merchant ships to operate in the Red Sea and adjacent areas of the Indian Ocean, which would otherwise be forbidden by their neutrality acts as it would be viewed as a war zone. Not sure how relative this actually was as Britain and its allies had considerable shipping available and the Italian naval forces weren't in a state to do much in the way of attacking shipping. - I have a feeling that as important might be the loss of British Somaliland which incensed Churchill and he wanted that revenged.
TTL changes. - Its decided and Churchill is persuaded that priority should be given to renewing the attack into Libya with an aim to advance to Tripoli. Possibly the 6th Australian division is transferred to a slightly delayed campaign against Italian East Africa? The offensive into Cyrenaica is resumed earlier with similar success but possibly with slightly less wear and tear and since at this stage Greece was still unwilling to accept British forces for fear of the German reaction. As such there is a basis for working up to complete the operation by an advance to Tripoli and the level of success so far persuaded Churchill to support this. It takes a hell of an effort but such a decision is taken and forces are committed before Greece changes its mind about British deployment so forces for such an operation aren't available - although possibly an allied base is established on Crete. The advance to Tripoli and its capture is achieved by say March/April 41 is completed. In part the Italians are not given time to recover from the earlier defeats and with their fleet reeling from the destruction of much of their fleet - and scattering of the rest - after Taranto so their not in a position to seriously intervene. Possibly Hitler gives up on N Africa or Rommel - or some other German general - is sent there but not in time and with enough forces to manage to avoid the collapse.
Other assumptions are that the Yugoslav coup and the German invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece occur as OTL. That possibly allied forces are already in Crete and its held or alternatively its occupied by the Germans without any marked British/imperial ground or naval losses. That Italian East Africa, totally isolated as it was still falls a bit later than OTL. That any coup in Iraq is defeated as OTL and Iran occupied after Operation Barbarossa opens making the USSR an ally. Probably there's still the German and then British intervention in Syria. Negatives for Britain in this scenario. a) Probably some loss of prestige in not openly and directly supporting Greece. b) The N African front doesn't become a training ground for forces and also for commanders to learn their skills. As such probably slower development of equipment and of attributes like close ground support for the army. c) If Crete is held then there would be the issue of supplying it in the face of Axis air forces based in an occupied Greece. - Which could be a significant problem with the main ports being on the north coast. Positives for Britain a) No continued drain of resources for the fighting in N Africa which means that a lot of men and equipment are saved and available for use elsewhere.
b) Probably very little fighting around Malta. With control of Tripoli and neighbouring regions Britain could send equipment and supplies fairly securely by coastal convoy from Egypt then its a relatively short trip to Malta, which would have cover from air units based around Tripoli. Also since Italy doesn't need to supply Axis forces in N Africa there's no great need, other than prestige for attempts to attack Malta, This saves not only ground forces but also the many ships sunk or damaged in the OTL fighting in the Med. c) Both of those mean less stuff to lug to either Egypt or Malta which saves on shipping.
d) Also its likely that assets committed to the Med OTL, most especially the subs who have no supply convoys to attack could be deployed elsewhere. [This does apply to both sides and in this event its unlikely that Hitler would send U boats into the Med so the Germans would have more available for the Atlantic battles]. e) With growing tension in the east I could see some reinforcement of SE Asia and the return of a number of ANZ units that OTL were operating in the ME. Which is likely to at least start prior to any Japanese attack. Also some Indian and British units are likely to be sent east, including probably some armoured units, say a brigade or so along with some aircraft which while probably not the most modern will be markedly better than one ones OTL. f) This is not going to be massive but 2-4 divisions and some air could make the situation in Malaya and places like Rabaul distinctly more difficult. Also probably there would be more substantial forces being built up in Egypt and the ME for either a defence of the Caucasus region if Russia fell or a possible attempt to intervene in the Balkans. Those forces are likely to be available if as OTL the Soviets hold and counter attack in Dec 41 and at the same time Japan attacks to react to the sudden crisis in the east. As such while a lot could happen, as well as avoiding the continued bloodbath in N Africa and the Med, your likely to see at least Malaya and the western DEI held which would drastically improve the allied position in the war in the Far East and overall. Probably also Burma as Japanese forces are likely to be drawn south while with control of the Indian Ocean Britain can more easily reinforce the region. In turn this would considerably boost the allied position in China as the KMT could get a lot more equipment via the Burma road than they ever could by flying over the hump. Anyway, two questions please. a) Do you think the above ideas viable? b) If so how do you think the war would go from here? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 12, 2024 8:34:49 GMT
This is a scenario I'm been thinking of for a couple of decades on and off. It looks at a possible change in N Africa which might have considerable impacts on the rest of the world. Operation Compass was initially just a planned short raid against the Italian forces that had crossed the border into Egypt and dug into forts a little distance from the border. It was carried out by two divisions, the 7th Armoured and the 4th Indian, which was a motorised division. OTL it was spectacularly successful with the destruction of virtually all the Italian forces by the attackers who were only about a quarter of their size.
OTL plans to move further into Libya and seek to take advantage of the shock of the Italian defeat were delayed because it was decided to transfer the 4th Indian div to play a major role in the multi-front invasion of Italian East Africa. As a result several weeks were lost while the 6th Australian Div was brought to the region and acclimatized to the conditions. [This might also have involved linking them up to equipment and familiarizing them with that as a while back I learnt that all the ANZ units at this stage of the war got just about everything larger than personal weapons from British sources and when they were sent back toward Australia in response to the Japanese attack the situation was still desperate enough in the ME that Britain took back such equipment to fit new forces coming in to replace them]. Despite this the 2nd stage attack was successful with the occupation of most of Cyrenaica and capture of the bulk of the Italian forces in the region. Casualties were light but a lot of wear and tear occurred on the vehicles especially in the cross country advance to cut off the Italian retreat. Then many of those veterans were among the forces sent to Greece which suffered heavy losses of equipment and men. The relatively small forces left behind were surprised and defeated by Rommel's attack - in part because those were against Hitler's orders and hence not warned against by code readers. Italian E Africa was occupied and pro-Axis revolts in Iraq and then Iran were suppressed along with the occupation of French Syria but you got the start of the desert war that swung backwards and forwards for another 2-3 years. Question - What I'm asking is whether one relatively small change could have vastly altered the path of the war? What if the 4th Indian hadn't be detached from the WDF [Western Desert Force] and enabled a chance in the dynamics of the war in N Africa. The reason I did read for the urgency of the operation against Italian East Africa was that to remove it from play would allow US merchant ships to operate in the Red Sea and adjacent areas of the Indian Ocean, which would otherwise be forbidden by their neutrality acts as it would be viewed as a war zone. Not sure how relative this actually was as Britain and its allies had considerable shipping available and the Italian naval forces weren't in a state to do much in the way of attacking shipping. - I have a feeling that as important might be the loss of British Somaliland which incensed Churchill and he wanted that revenged.
TTL changes. - Its decided and Churchill is persuaded that priority should be given to renewing the attack into Libya with an aim to advance to Tripoli. Possibly the 6th Australian division is transferred to a slightly delayed campaign against Italian East Africa? The offensive into Cyrenaica is resumed earlier with similar success but possibly with slightly less wear and tear and since at this stage Greece was still unwilling to accept British forces for fear of the German reaction. As such there is a basis for working up to complete the operation by an advance to Tripoli and the level of success so far persuaded Churchill to support this. It takes a hell of an effort but such a decision is taken and forces are committed before Greece changes its mind about British deployment so forces for such an operation aren't available - although possibly an allied base is established on Crete. The advance to Tripoli and its capture is achieved by say March/April 41 is completed. In part the Italians are not given time to recover from the earlier defeats and with their fleet reeling from the destruction of much of their fleet - and scattering of the rest - after Taranto so their not in a position to seriously intervene. Possibly Hitler gives up on N Africa or Rommel - or some other German general - is sent there but not in time and with enough forces to manage to avoid the collapse.
Other assumptions are that the Yugoslav coup and the German invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece occur as OTL. That possibly allied forces are already in Crete and its held or alternatively its occupied by the Germans without any marked British/imperial ground or naval losses. That Italian East Africa, totally isolated as it was still falls a bit later than OTL. That any coup in Iraq is defeated as OTL and Iran occupied after Operation Barbarossa opens making the USSR an ally. Probably there's still the German and then British intervention in Syria. Negatives for Britain in this scenario. a) Probably some loss of prestige in not openly and directly supporting Greece. b) The N African front doesn't become a training ground for forces and also for commanders to learn their skills. As such probably slower development of equipment and of attributes like close ground support for the army. c) If Crete is held then there would be the issue of supplying it in the face of Axis air forces based in an occupied Greece. - Which could be a significant problem with the main ports being on the north coast. Positives for Britain a) No continued drain of resources for the fighting in N Africa which means that a lot of men and equipment are saved and available for use elsewhere.
b) Probably very little fighting around Malta. With control of Tripoli and neighbouring regions Britain could send equipment and supplies fairly securely by coastal convoy from Egypt then its a relatively short trip to Malta, which would have cover from air units based around Tripoli. Also since Italy doesn't need to supply Axis forces in N Africa there's no great need, other than prestige for attempts to attack Malta, This saves not only ground forces but also the many ships sunk or damaged in the OTL fighting in the Med. c) Both of those mean less stuff to lug to either Egypt or Malta which saves on shipping.
d) Also its likely that assets committed to the Med OTL, most especially the subs who have no supply convoys to attack could be deployed elsewhere. [This does apply to both sides and in this event its unlikely that Hitler would send U boats into the Med so the Germans would have more available for the Atlantic battles]. e) With growing tension in the east I could see some reinforcement of SE Asia and the return of a number of ANZ units that OTL were operating in the ME. Which is likely to at least start prior to any Japanese attack. Also some Indian and British units are likely to be sent east, including probably some armoured units, say a brigade or so along with some aircraft which while probably not the most modern will be markedly better than one ones OTL. f) This is not going to be massive but 2-4 divisions and some air could make the situation in Malaya and places like Rabaul distinctly more difficult. Also probably there would be more substantial forces being built up in Egypt and the ME for either a defence of the Caucasus region if Russia fell or a possible attempt to intervene in the Balkans. Those forces are likely to be available if as OTL the Soviets hold and counter attack in Dec 41 and at the same time Japan attacks to react to the sudden crisis in the east. As such while a lot could happen, as well as avoiding the continued bloodbath in N Africa and the Med, your likely to see at least Malaya and the western DEI held which would drastically improve the allied position in the war in the Far East and overall. Probably also Burma as Japanese forces are likely to be drawn south while with control of the Indian Ocean Britain can more easily reinforce the region. In turn this would considerably boost the allied position in China as the KMT could get a lot more equipment via the Burma road than they ever could by flying over the hump. Anyway, two questions please. a) Do you think the above ideas viable? b) If so how do you think the war would go from here?
Sorry I meant it as a play on words as the basic PoD is that its kept in N Africa rather than sent to the East African campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 12, 2024 10:32:15 GMT
As far as Tripolis? As there weren't many railroads in Libya yet (just a few short pieces around Tripolis/Bengasi), and the harbors were small, an attacking British force might get logistics problems. Esp. since they'll have to deal with Axis attacks too, just as Rommel with Malta. (Then again, in 1943 it worked - how did they solve their supply problem then?)
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jun 12, 2024 13:51:55 GMT
Had a go at this a couple of years ago - to me it boilds down to O'Conner given the go in time to be able to keep the Italians running before Rommel shows up and spoil the show. I didn't go into great logistical detail! regarding British supply which of course would have to have been on trucks or by ship from Benghazi to the west. I and Mussolini too didn't expect the Italians themselves to stop the British/Commonwealth advance and had to call upon the Germans. The outcome of course need an asessment of British truck no's in NA at the time for the ability to haul fuel ahead and which volume could have been moved using availtable ports.
What I pointed to at the time was for possible effect upon FIC - I looked up the command besides other stuff can be found in that thread. As can some dates on DAK units arrival as well as Luftwaffe X Fliegerkorps in Sicily. Taranto happened Nov 1940.
We were not that long ago onto the British promises for the Balkans - in a Max S thread?
Anyway I think if the Britisk can keep up momentum they may have the Italians running before them.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 12, 2024 16:51:35 GMT
As far as Tripolis? As there weren't many railroads in Libya yet (just a few short pieces around Tripolis/Bengasi), and the harbors were small, an attacking British force might get logistics problems. Esp. since they'll have to deal with Axis attacks too, just as Rommel with Malta. (Then again, in 1943 it worked - how did they solve their supply problem then?)
It would be a hell of a problem but given the hammering of the Italian fleet at Taranto and the collapse of their 10th Army in Cyrenaica plus the heavy losses and deadlock in Greece at the time it might be possible. Naval power and possibly some landings behind Italian positions might enable defensive positions to be turned. The Italians would have a lot more men but their morale could be very fragile and if you can have forces operating from the Cyrenaica region in support of such an operation it might work.
In 43 both sides but especially the British had a lot more resources but it was rather a moot point given Operation Torch meant that possession of most of FIC meant the western forces were within striking distance of Tunis and Rommel and the Axis forces couldn't stay in the Tripoli region and had to retreat northwards.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 12, 2024 16:59:24 GMT
Had a go at this a couple of years ago - to me it boilds down to O'Conner given the go in time to be able to keep the Italians running before Rommel shows up and spoil the show. I didn't go into great logistical detail! regarding British supply which of course would have to have been on trucks or by ship from Benghazi to the west. I and Mussolini too didn't expect the Italians themselves to stop the British/Commonwealth advance and had to call upon the Germans. The outcome of course need an asessment of British truck no's in NA at the time for the ability to haul fuel ahead and which volume could have been moved using availtable ports.
What I pointed to at the time was for possible effect upon FIC - I looked up the command besides other stuff can be found in that thread. As can some dates on DAK units arrival as well as Luftwaffe X Fliegerkorps in Sicily. Taranto happened Nov 1940.
We were not that long ago onto the British promises for the Balkans - in a Max S thread?
Anyway I think if the Britisk can keep up momentum they may have the Italians running before them.
I was presuming things operate fast enough to avoid any serious German intervention, either air or land. Sicily would be somewhat distant for air support to Tripoli as opposed to supporting much of the supply lines from Sicily to Tripoli and I would hope that the bulk of the LW would be tied up either in the blitz or rebuilding after the Battle of Britain.
It is a big gamble if things go wrong, although in turn its difficult to see an Axis force driving back all that distance and then getting past the El Alamein position.
What I'm looking at was if it did success how greatly it would boost Britain's position for the rest of the war and you might avoid the cascade of disasters that occurred OTL, with repeated defeats in Greece and N Africa and then the disaster's that occurred in Malaya and Burma which had huge human, military, economic and diplomatic/prestige impacts.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jun 13, 2024 7:51:25 GMT
Had a go at this a couple of years ago - to me it boilds down to O'Conner given the go in time to be able to keep the Italians running before Rommel shows up and spoil the show. I didn't go into great logistical detail! regarding British supply which of course would have to have been on trucks or by ship from Benghazi to the west. I and Mussolini too didn't expect the Italians themselves to stop the British/Commonwealth advance and had to call upon the Germans. The outcome of course need an asessment of British truck no's in NA at the time for the ability to haul fuel ahead and which volume could have been moved using availtable ports.
What I pointed to at the time was for possible effect upon FIC - I looked up the command besides other stuff can be found in that thread. As can some dates on DAK units arrival as well as Luftwaffe X Fliegerkorps in Sicily. Taranto happened Nov 1940.
We were not that long ago onto the British promises for the Balkans - in a Max S thread?
Anyway I think if the Britisk can keep up momentum they may have the Italians running before them.
I was presuming things operate fast enough to avoid any serious German intervention, either air or land. Sicily would be somewhat distant for air support to Tripoli as opposed to supporting much of the supply lines from Sicily to Tripoli and I would hope that the bulk of the LW would be tied up either in the blitz or rebuilding after the Battle of Britain.
It is a big gamble if things go wrong, although in turn its difficult to see an Axis force driving back all that distance and then getting past the El Alamein position.
What I'm looking at was if it did success how greatly it would boost Britain's position for the rest of the war and you might avoid the cascade of disasters that occurred OTL, with repeated defeats in Greece and N Africa and then the disaster's that occurred in Malaya and Burma which had huge human, military, economic and diplomatic/prestige impacts.
Well I thought so and hence my thoughts - and do agree with Your premises.
Still as in my previous TL I assumed a real possibility that FIC might turn Free French which I think would have quite a large impact. I would provide the Allies with a rather substantial manpower pool. It also plays a third of French Gold into the hands of the FF along the third that had been shipped to Canada which would enable de Gaulle to buy arms in the US.
Having a southern Med dominated by the Allies may well have effects in the Middle East where the Levant Vichy French may rethink their position as well as in FIC though the Japanese have pressured the French by invading FIC to cede them bases 23 September 1940 and areas bordering China and following the Thai - French War during January 1941 the Japanese moved in to end it which happened by 11 March 1941 with the Vichy and Thailand signing a peace treaty. Japan invaded the remaining parts of FIC following the opening of Barbarossa 28 July 1941.
I could see Hitler occupying Vichy France which would clear de Gaulles position as the fighting Frenchman. Some units of the French Navy may escape as OTL to FIC but the major units being sunk to prevent German take-over. This will also change the situation in the Far East with the Japanese very possibly moving into FIC though such action will of course have de Gaulle protesting though how much is Churchill going to do about it? It will be showing Japanese intentions - earlier buildup in Malaya and British Borneo? Though the Campaign in Italian East Africa isn't ended. And then Balkan!
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 13, 2024 18:42:46 GMT
I was presuming things operate fast enough to avoid any serious German intervention, either air or land. Sicily would be somewhat distant for air support to Tripoli as opposed to supporting much of the supply lines from Sicily to Tripoli and I would hope that the bulk of the LW would be tied up either in the blitz or rebuilding after the Battle of Britain.
It is a big gamble if things go wrong, although in turn its difficult to see an Axis force driving back all that distance and then getting past the El Alamein position.
What I'm looking at was if it did success how greatly it would boost Britain's position for the rest of the war and you might avoid the cascade of disasters that occurred OTL, with repeated defeats in Greece and N Africa and then the disaster's that occurred in Malaya and Burma which had huge human, military, economic and diplomatic/prestige impacts.
Well I thought so and hence my thoughts - and do agree with Your premises.
Still as in my previous TL I assumed a real possibility that FIC might turn Free French which I think would have quite a large impact. I would provide the Allies with a rather substantial manpower pool. It also plays a third of French Gold into the hands of the FF along the third that had been shipped to Canada which would enable de Gaulle to buy arms in the US.
Having a southern Med dominated by the Allies may well have effects in the Middle East where the Levant Vichy French may rethink their position as well as in FIC though the Japanese have pressured the French by invading FIC to cede them bases 23 September 1940 and areas bordering China and following the Thai - French War during January 1941 the Japanese moved in to end it which happened by 11 March 1941 with the Vichy and Thailand signing a peace treaty. Japan invaded the remaining parts of FIC following the opening of Barbarossa 28 July 1941.
I could see Hitler occupying Vichy France which would clear de Gaulles position as the fighting Frenchman. Some units of the French Navy may escape as OTL to FIC but the major units being sunk to prevent German take-over. This will also change the situation in the Far East with the Japanese very possibly moving into FIC though such action will of course have de Gaulle protesting though how much is Churchill going to do about it? It will be showing Japanese intentions - earlier buildup in Malaya and British Borneo? Though the Campaign in Italian East Africa isn't ended. And then Balkan!
I must admit I hadn't considered this option as its relatively short period of time since a crushing defeat and any such move would result in the occupation of mainland French and Corsica while there might also be fears of Hitler turning his wrath on FNA. It also means Hitler can offer Spain a lot more in terms of territory which French leaders, probably not aware of Franco's reluctance to join the war and the dire state of much of Spain's logistics could be a real fear for the French leaders. Also at this stage, with an advance to Tripoli concluding in say March-May period this is before Operation Barbarossa starts so the Germans are going to look as if they have a hell of a lot more resources to attack into N Africa. Especially if the decision by some units in FNA or elsewhere are not unanimous. [You could see a period of bitter internal conflict with the threat of such giving the Axis a much easier path to establish a base in N Africa, although if most of the French fleet went free and given the Italian losses this could be difficult to maintain.] As you say it would strongly strengthen the allied powers - apart from possibly in the Far East - and I didn't want to make too much of a wank.
If it does happen then depending on the completeness of the French colonial provinces switching from Vichy to FF but its a big boost to the allies cause, coupled with the removal of the Italian empire in Africa for the reasons you mentioned. It opens up a lot more resources and bases for the allies to secure their supply lines and the French navy was especially useful in taking pressure off their beleagued position.
One possible negative impact might be that with more French gold available, coupled with a better military position and hence reduced need for a lot of equipment is that its longer before allied fiscal reserves are exhausted and hence L-L is delayed. If this goes too far beyond the start of Barbarossa it might affect the willingness of elements in the US to support L-L, especially for the USSR. Although its likely that would delay such an action rather than prevent it altogether.
I do have one problem in that considering this means either we assume it occurs for sure or we have two differing scenario's in place and that makes discussion more complex of how things go from here? Have to give this some thought.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jun 14, 2024 7:09:30 GMT
During our discussion 2 year back here - I found that General Nogue commander 19. Corps in FNA had been adverse to the armistice but also that General Bethouard who had commanded the French troops in Norway had resented his requesting being repatriated from Britain to France following the armistice. Hence why I thought it a possible that FNA might switch sides - also there was a substantial French Airforce present as their best aircraft had been evacuated to FNA during the final weeks of June 1940. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 14, 2024 11:57:50 GMT
During our discussion 2 year back here - I found that General Nogue commander 19. Corps in FNA had been adverse to the armistice but also that General Bethouard who had commanded the French troops in Norway had resented his requesting being repatriated from Britain to France following the armistice. Hence why I thought it a possible that FNA might switch sides - also there was a substantial French Airforce present as their best aircraft had been evacuated to FNA during the final weeks of June 1940.
Interesting. Had forgotten that thread.  Busy at the moment but will try and re-read it this afternoon and get back to you. Thanks. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 14, 2024 16:49:53 GMT
During our discussion 2 year back here - I found that General Nogue commander 19. Corps in FNA had been adverse to the armistice but also that General Bethouard who had commanded the French troops in Norway had resented his requesting being repatriated from Britain to France following the armistice. Hence why I thought it a possible that FNA might switch sides - also there was a substantial French Airforce present as their best aircraft had been evacuated to FNA during the final weeks of June 1940.
Gone back and read through the thread. My memory is getting worse as I had forgotten everything.
Think best to accept the idea of FNA defecting, possibly triggered by with British forces closing on Tripoli and increasing difficulties in supplying it Hitler puts pressure on Vichy to allow Axis forces to use Tunisian ports for an advance southwards. Which Vichy might consider this given the threats of occupation news leaks to the forces in Tunisia and there is resentment especially since the bulk of the occupying force would be the despised Italians. You get major unrest in FNA, the occupation of Vichy France and Corsica by the Axis and French forces helping in the encirclement of Tripoli.
Hitler is enraged but accepts that N Africa is lost, possibly after considering a airborne landing in Tunisia and being talked out of it decides as well as the operation in southern France that he must help the Italians in Greece so his flank is cleared. You could well still get the Yugoslav revolt at this point so the occupation of it and Greece goes as OTL but without British presence in mainland Greece. I could see a fight for Crete as Churchill would want to step in and with forces spare in the ME at this point - since OTL the forces committed in Greece would be available other than some in occupation positions in Cyrenaica as I doubt there would be the logistics to have them support the main offensive west of that, at least until FNA is secured. As such a couple of divisions and some air landed in Crete before an attempted air and sea assault by the Axis could go either way. - With more of the RN tied up in the central Med the bigger threat might come from sea-borne forces rather than the air landing in this case. Likely to be significant losses on both sides. - However this intervention is optional.
In this case I would see a lot of the French colonies switching to the allied side. FIC might not as it could fear this would prompt hostility from Japan and IIRC Madagascar was a hold-out OTL but suspect most other locations would switch. This would probably include Syria and with the differing situation I agree with comments that the Iraq revolt is unlikely to go off on time.
Germany will probably have marginally less losses in the Balkans and slightly more time to regroup for Barbarossa but as 575 says its going to lose a fair number of infantry divisions at the least to garrison Vichy France.
This leaves the following situation as I see it in various regions.
a) The Med:
Here Britain and its allies are big winners. Not only does Britain and its empire avoid the OTL losses, both on land but at sea and in the air but the presence of French forces provides additional strength. Also there are additional bonuses because Malta is no longer a strategic or political factor. Since there are no longer Axis supply lines to N Africa/Tripoli there's no need to attack it and it can easily be supported/reinforced from Tunis and the latter can in turn be supplied by land with a rail link west to Morocco. As such its likely that there is much less action in the Med overall. I could see the sea becoming a predominantly French domain with some British support with squadrons at Gib and Alexandria. This in turn frees up British ships for the Battle of the Atlantic and also the far east when that theatre kicks off.
There are some down sides: i) Britain doesn't get the OTL experience from the NA campaigns, on land, at sea and in the air with the most important in the latter being developing a decent ground support capacity. ii) Similarly in this scenario Germany is unlikely to send subs to the Med, or at least far less, which means there will be more operating in the Atlantic and northern ocean where they can probably do more damage. iii) Those French forces are likely to need to be re-equipped which even with the lower pressure on Britain could be an issue, at least until L-L takes off or then the US is in the war. Once items are available the army is fairly simple and also the French gold stocks could mean they get a mainly American refit. The ships could be more difficult because their using the SI system while both Britain and the US are using their own imperial systems. The most difficult items could be the aircraft as their likely to quickly run out of spares and when they see combat munitions. As said elsewhere the French have some very good a/c but can they be supported in the longer term economically? I suspect they will end up flying a dwindling force of their own aircraft as their replaced with US or UK equipment as I doubt there's much capacity for such specialized construction in FNA. [Would be glad to hear I'm wrong here if anyone knows otherwise.]
b) The Eastern Front:
Germany will have up to two additional motorized divisions, one armoured and the other termed a light division minus anything lost in N Africa. They will probably, without British intervention in Greece, also have a little more time for reconstruction of damaged units. Also they will be freed up of resources consumed in supporting operations in the Med and N Africa OTL that occurred later on. However they will be short a number of largely infantry divisions now tied up in Vichy France. Possibly without the latter having a continued commitment to Libya they can pry some additional units out of Italy, although that is probably more likely to be for occupation duties in the Balkans freeing up some of the German units here. [Thinking because this would be simpler logistically, the German units are also probably better equipped and trained and the Germans are likely to have a very poor opinion of the Italians based on their performance in Greece and N African coupled with the racial bias their likely to have]. Ultimately Germany is likely to seek Italian troops for deployment in the east as casualties mount there, especially after 1941 but given questions about Italian morale you could also see as desire for some German units in Italy as well, especially if it looks like the allies are building up for an operation in the Med - which is likely to be the case until the war in the Far East starts.
As such Germany might make greater initial breakthroughs, especially if their para and air mobile units avoid the OTL devastating losses. However with less Infantry units its going to take more time for the foot infantry to reach and take over those pockets, which could mean a slower advance overall, more losses to the German spearhead units and more Soviet forces escaping the pockets formed. As such it could be that overall German progress in the east is slower and more costly, although possibly not massively so. Not sure whether this might change German actions, for better or worse?
c) The Far East:
Its likely that few units will be sent east quickly. A lot might depend on what happens in FIC, where the French had occupied the north in Sept 1940. Under those circumstances its difficult to know what happens? Would the local French leaders seek to switch to the FF? That could be a problem as the allies lack both the forces and any path to help them so it could prompt another round of fighting with the occupation of the rest of the colonies earlier than OTL. In which case does this mean war between the allies and Japan which would cause both sides problems, initially worse for the allies. One the other hand Vichy will be discredited and any puppet regime Hitler might set up would lack much moral support.
If the Japanese do occupy the rest of FIC earlier, whether with or without war with the allies what does the US do? I can see an export embargo and the freezing of Japanese assets but I doubt at this stage the US would do more? In turn what does Japan do and how can the allies respond?
If there's not an early conflict between the allies and Japan over FIC but its occupied as OTL or a bit earlier then I can see increasing pressure for reinforcement of defensive positions in the region. The ANZ nations are going to be especially concerned about that and a lot of their regular forces are likely to be send back east. Some are likely to be deployed forward in Malaya and also positions such as Port Moresby and Rabaul. There will also be pressure for British and Indian forces to also reinforce the region and might be some agreement with the DEI as that region was very vulnerable to a Japanese attack and also vital for the empire to defend. However at the same time there will be a desire to avoid/deter a war with Japan that the allies can ill afford and with a major conflict in Europe that will still take priority. As such I can see some additional divisions from Britain and India primarily with better aircraft but still markedly less than defence plans called for and of older designs, say Hurricanes rather than updated Spitfires. You might see a small naval force also sent there, probably a CV and some older BBs.
Anyway my initial thoughts on how things might go and be interested to see what people think.
Steve
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jun 15, 2024 8:54:09 GMT
During our discussion 2 year back here - I found that General Nogue commander 19. Corps in FNA had been adverse to the armistice but also that General Bethouard who had commanded the French troops in Norway had resented his requesting being repatriated from Britain to France following the armistice. Hence why I thought it a possible that FNA might switch sides - also there was a substantial French Airforce present as their best aircraft had been evacuated to FNA during the final weeks of June 1940.
Gone back and read through the thread. My memory is getting worse as I had forgotten everything.
Think best to accept the idea of FNA defecting, possibly triggered by with British forces closing on Tripoli and increasing difficulties in supplying it Hitler puts pressure on Vichy to allow Axis forces to use Tunisian ports for an advance southwards. Which Vichy might consider this given the threats of occupation news leaks to the forces in Tunisia and there is resentment especially since the bulk of the occupying force would be the despised Italians. You get major unrest in FNA, the occupation of Vichy France and Corsica by the Axis and French forces helping in the encirclement of Tripoli.
Hitler is enraged but accepts that N Africa is lost, possibly after considering a airborne landing in Tunisia and being talked out of it decides as well as the operation in southern France that he must help the Italians in Greece so his flank is cleared. You could well still get the Yugoslav revolt at this point so the occupation of it and Greece goes as OTL but without British presence in mainland Greece. I could see a fight for Crete as Churchill would want to step in and with forces spare in the ME at this point - since OTL the forces committed in Greece would be available other than some in occupation positions in Cyrenaica as I doubt there would be the logistics to have them support the main offensive west of that, at least until FNA is secured. As such a couple of divisions and some air landed in Crete before an attempted air and sea assault by the Axis could go either way. - With more of the RN tied up in the central Med the bigger threat might come from sea-borne forces rather than the air landing in this case. Likely to be significant losses on both sides. - However this intervention is optional.
In this case I would see a lot of the French colonies switching to the allied side. FIC might not as it could fear this would prompt hostility from Japan and IIRC Madagascar was a hold-out OTL but suspect most other locations would switch. This would probably include Syria and with the differing situation I agree with comments that the Iraq revolt is unlikely to go off on time.
Germany will probably have marginally less losses in the Balkans and slightly more time to regroup for Barbarossa but as 575 says its going to lose a fair number of infantry divisions at the least to garrison Vichy France.
This leaves the following situation as I see it in various regions.
a) The Med:
Here Britain and its allies are big winners. Not only does Britain and its empire avoid the OTL losses, both on land but at sea and in the air but the presence of French forces provides additional strength. Also there are additional bonuses because Malta is no longer a strategic or political factor. Since there are no longer Axis supply lines to N Africa/Tripoli there's no need to attack it and it can easily be supported/reinforced from Tunis and the latter can in turn be supplied by land with a rail link west to Morocco. As such its likely that there is much less action in the Med overall. I could see the sea becoming a predominantly French domain with some British support with squadrons at Gib and Alexandria. This in turn frees up British ships for the Battle of the Atlantic and also the far east when that theatre kicks off.
There are some down sides: i) Britain doesn't get the OTL experience from the NA campaigns, on land, at sea and in the air with the most important in the latter being developing a decent ground support capacity. ii) Similarly in this scenario Germany is unlikely to send subs to the Med, or at least far less, which means there will be more operating in the Atlantic and northern ocean where they can probably do more damage. iii) Those French forces are likely to need to be re-equipped which even with the lower pressure on Britain could be an issue, at least until L-L takes off or then the US is in the war. Once items are available the army is fairly simple and also the French gold stocks could mean they get a mainly American refit. The ships could be more difficult because their using the SI system while both Britain and the US are using their own imperial systems. The most difficult items could be the aircraft as their likely to quickly run out of spares and when they see combat munitions. As said elsewhere the French have some very good a/c but can they be supported in the longer term economically? I suspect they will end up flying a dwindling force of their own aircraft as their replaced with US or UK equipment as I doubt there's much capacity for such specialized construction in FNA. [Would be glad to hear I'm wrong here if anyone knows otherwise.]
b) The Eastern Front:
Germany will have up to two additional motorized divisions, one armoured and the other termed a light division minus anything lost in N Africa. They will probably, without British intervention in Greece, also have a little more time for reconstruction of damaged units. Also they will be freed up of resources consumed in supporting operations in the Med and N Africa OTL that occurred later on. However they will be short a number of largely infantry divisions now tied up in Vichy France. Possibly without the latter having a continued commitment to Libya they can pry some additional units out of Italy, although that is probably more likely to be for occupation duties in the Balkans freeing up some of the German units here. [Thinking because this would be simpler logistically, the German units are also probably better equipped and trained and the Germans are likely to have a very poor opinion of the Italians based on their performance in Greece and N African coupled with the racial bias their likely to have]. Ultimately Germany is likely to seek Italian troops for deployment in the east as casualties mount there, especially after 1941 but given questions about Italian morale you could also see as desire for some German units in Italy as well, especially if it looks like the allies are building up for an operation in the Med - which is likely to be the case until the war in the Far East starts.
As such Germany might make greater initial breakthroughs, especially if their para and air mobile units avoid the OTL devastating losses. However with less Infantry units its going to take more time for the foot infantry to reach and take over those pockets, which could mean a slower advance overall, more losses to the German spearhead units and more Soviet forces escaping the pockets formed. As such it could be that overall German progress in the east is slower and more costly, although possibly not massively so. Not sure whether this might change German actions, for better or worse?
c) The Far East:
Its likely that few units will be sent east quickly. A lot might depend on what happens in FIC, where the French had occupied the north in Sept 1940. Under those circumstances its difficult to know what happens? Would the local French leaders seek to switch to the FF? That could be a problem as the allies lack both the forces and any path to help them so it could prompt another round of fighting with the occupation of the rest of the colonies earlier than OTL. In which case does this mean war between the allies and Japan which would cause both sides problems, initially worse for the allies. One the other hand Vichy will be discredited and any puppet regime Hitler might set up would lack much moral support.
If the Japanese do occupy the rest of FIC earlier, whether with or without war with the allies what does the US do? I can see an export embargo and the freezing of Japanese assets but I doubt at this stage the US would do more? In turn what does Japan do and how can the allies respond?
If there's not an early conflict between the allies and Japan over FIC but its occupied as OTL or a bit earlier then I can see increasing pressure for reinforcement of defensive positions in the region. The ANZ nations are going to be especially concerned about that and a lot of their regular forces are likely to be send back east. Some are likely to be deployed forward in Malaya and also positions such as Port Moresby and Rabaul. There will also be pressure for British and Indian forces to also reinforce the region and might be some agreement with the DEI as that region was very vulnerable to a Japanese attack and also vital for the empire to defend. However at the same time there will be a desire to avoid/deter a war with Japan that the allies can ill afford and with a major conflict in Europe that will still take priority. As such I can see some additional divisions from Britain and India primarily with better aircraft but still markedly less than defence plans called for and of older designs, say Hurricanes rather than updated Spitfires. You might see a small naval force also sent there, probably a CV and some older BBs.
Anyway my initial thoughts on how things might go and be interested to see what people think.
Steve
a) iii) France had orders for trucks and aircraft in the US - by this time of course these had been taken over by the British but perhaps they would be happy to re-transfer those to the FF? Grumman F4F-3 and Curtiss P-40 wasn't really the British cup of tea at this moment. Also the French wanted the Lockheed P-38 which the British too didn't like as they wasn't happy with the contrarotating propeller's. For light bombers the French wanted the Martin 167 (Maryland) and Douglas DB-7 and the Naval divebomber/Light attacker Vought V-156 (SB2U Vindicator). The LB-30 (B-24) also on the French order menu.
An assembly plant had been setup in Morocco with US personnel prior to the war and could be re-activated though besides that and the Navy bases works there would be little industry to draw upon. The assembly plant might be worked up to a factory building US aircraft. Reworking aircraft to French specifications doesn't strike me as terribly difficult from readings - seems quite the SOP perhaps due to the volume sales? The major issue would be the throttle working as the French had the the other way round! Which of course made it imperative to rework it for RAF/FAA. As such there is no way of replacing the French manufacture aircraft and a shift to US makes will be the way to go - this will also help US manufacture's gear up for the War.
The French had the old Arcraft Carrier Béarn in the West Indies which had been used for ferrying AC and would be used in that role still as it was mainly unsuited to Operations. The Battleship Richelieu is still at Dakar, WA, Jean Bart at Casablanca, Morocco. The Richelieu may go to the US to be repaired and finished if an arrangement can be made (US still not at War) - the Jean Bart perhaps too if the US wants the payment.
The French had shipped almost the entire French Army of North Africa to Metropolitan France at the outbreak of WWII which had left a Motorized Cavalry Division 6. DLC, two Tank Battalion Groups of mainly obsolete Tanks (FT-17 and Char D1), four horse Cavalry Brigades, some Foreign Legion Cavalry Regiments and 12 training Infantry Divisions half of which were static. These units was fitted out with French weapons from pistols to 155mm guns so no immediate change of weaponry is needed - the 155mm guns were basically identical to the US ones as these was based on the French design! And the 75mm too. Any ammo-factory would be able to supply any range of ammunition - Danish Madsen could supply Mauser 7,92, Swedish 6,5 and any other type wanted.
The US had no problems selling to the French previously and with the Legal Government - Vichy - out of the picture the FF should be able to do deals they wanted on like terms.
c) With legal French Government - Vichy - out the Japanese may have a rush at FIC. The French troops consisted of two Divisions and a Brigade. Some 36,000 troops including reserves. The Northern Division - Tonkin- had had some tanks prior to the Japanese requisitioning of Bases in Tonkin area which had been shot up during the fighting. A few obsolete aircraft had been flown in during the Thai - French/FIC war 1940-41. During this war the Thai's had basically brushed the French resistance away though the Foreign Legion had performed as expected and to some extend the Colonial Infantry too. The French Navy had been able to turn the tables in a strategic sense and the Japanese had forced a cease-fire upon the warring parties. If the Germans give the Japanese notice prior to the occupation of Vichy the Japanese may be able to pull off an operation disguised as replacement of troops in Tonkin and extend it to all of FIC.
As OTL the Japanese may leave the French Colonial administration to govern. Don't think the British/Commonwealth will have forces in area for obstructing the Japanese operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jul 7, 2024 1:38:28 GMT
Still as in my previous TL I assumed a real possibility that FIC might turn Free French which I think would have quite a large impact. You were thinking an early end to Vichy France makes FIC turn from Vichy to Free French loyalty? But would not the decisive moment where Vichy France is occupied and discredited still happen after September 1940, and thus, *northern* FIC already has a Japanese occupation force onsite, making it hard for even a Free French southern and central FIC to resist onward Japanese encroachment whenever the Japanese desire it? I must admit I hadn't considered this option as its relatively short period of time since a crushing defeat and any such move would result in the occupation of mainland French and Corsica while there might also be fears of Hitler turning his wrath on FNA. ou get major unrest in FNA, the occupation of Vichy France and Corsica by the Axis and French forces helping in the encirclement of Tripoli. Once the mainland unoccupied Vichy zone is occupied by the Axis, isn't Vichy entirely discredited, and won't. *all* French colonies automatically become Free French of one stripe or another? The only possible exception being the Vichy Administrators already working under the boots of Japanese occupiers in part or all of Indochina? But, overall question, could and would Operation Compass be so successful in just finishing off the Italian position not just in Tripoli, but in Libya completely, that both Hitler and Mussolini completely give up on trying to hold any bridgehead on the African continent in very late 1940 or early 1941? Or whatever they try fails? I know the Italian fleet has taken some beatings, but even post Taranto, Italians continued to do sealift operations, and the Axis did air resupply to North Africa. So, if beaten even in *all* Libya, won't the natural Italian reaction, supported by Germans, be to retreat their last survivors from Libya into Vichy French Tunisia, and dispatch forces from Italy's still substantial numbers of infantry in Sicily into Tunisia to meet with them to keep an African foothold, possibly augmented by Germans, and this Tunisian bridgehead would be something the British, and possible Free French would require more time to reduce and eliminate. |
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jul 7, 2024 8:49:47 GMT
Still as in my previous TL I assumed a real possibility that FIC might turn Free French which I think would have quite a large impact. You were thinking an early end to Vichy France makes FIC turn from Vichy to Free French loyalty? But would not the decisive moment where Vichy France is occupied and discredited still happen after September 1940, and thus, *northern* FIC already has a Japanese occupation force onsite, making it hard for even a Free French southern and central FIC to resist onward Japanese encroachment whenever the Japanese desire it? I actually wrote: -Having a southern Med dominated by the Allies may well have effects in the Middle East where the Levant Vichy French may rethink their position as well as in FIC though the Japanese have pressured the French by invading FIC to cede them bases 23 September 1940 and areas bordering China and following the Thai - French War during January 1941 the Japanese moved in to end it which happened by 11 March 1941 with the Vichy and Thailand signing a peace treaty. -This will also change the situation in the Far East with the Japanese very possibly moving into FIC
|
|
Busy at the moment but will try and re-read it this afternoon and get back to you. Thanks.