If Torch failed and Rommel contained Monty? Now what?

[ivanotter]

All,

It probably has been trashed out before. However:

Cold Torch at that stage actually have failed?

The US were not so happy sailing into what they looked at as a cul-de-sac.
Clark could have got himself killed (maybe not a big loss, but OK).
More French muddle

Patton's landing could have gone really bad

..That said, was time so much against Germany that Torch could not have been prevented or have failed due to non-German factors?

Rommel might have had a chance of containing Monty if he had been on the spot. Maybe.

For this WI, what could have been the outcome? November 1942 was pretty late in the war anyway.

Ivan

[Snake Featherston]

I rather doubt that Torch was able to fail, but Monty won El Alamein fair and square, so Rommel was not going to contain him there. After El Alamein the Axis were doomed to die in Africa, it was to them merely to choose the manner of their death.

[jmc247]

That would require a POD of Rommel not being a physical wreck at that point and having to be dragged from his hospital bed in Germany to the battlefield during the battle.

It would require a much harder POD of say a Mediterranean Hurricane hitting while the landings are occuring. Even then it just delays the defeat of Axis forces in the southern Mediterranean by months.

You want to change the battle for Africa signficantly it needs to be earlier in the timeline.

[Alex1guy]

Honestly, once the US were involved in the War, Nazi defeat wasn't an issue of if, but when. At best, Rommel holds on to Africa for a few more months, but by 1942 their fate is sealed.

[Color-Copycat]

It would require a much harder POD of say a Mediterranean Hurricane hitting while the landings are occuring.

I can't have been the only one who read that initially with the wrong type of Hurricane in mind ;)

[Snake Featherston]

Honestly, once the US were involved in the War, Nazi defeat wasn't an issue of if, but when. At best, Rommel holds on to Africa for a few more months, but by 1942 their fate is sealed.

I'd nitpick that as saying that once the Battle of Moscow happened, Nazi defeat was a question of how much bleeding the Allies would have to do to accomplish it.

[ivanotter]

I also thought that November 1942 was a bit late in the day.

OK, Could Torch have been held up until much later? say beginning of 1944? If that was so, then Brooke's Med strategy would be in tatters (1 million tons of shipping would not have been released and a lot of other things).

German forces being able to do more in the East or just USSR capturing more of Germany faster?

Ivan

[MattII]

North Africa pulled equipment away from Russia, so the sooner they go and lose that front the better.

[ivanotter]

Except the loss of North Africa would be more costly as the Med would have been a bigger theatre.

Ivan

[MattII]

I'm sorry, how does 'local air defence' equate to a bigger theatre? Also, it's not just the number of tanks you have to consider, it's the number of support vehicles as well, all those trucks got sent to Africa when they could have gone far more profitably into Russia.

[TheLordProtector]

I'm sorry, how does 'local air defence' equate to a bigger theatre? Also, it's not just the number of tanks you have to consider, it's the number of support vehicles as well, all those trucks got sent to Africa when they could have gone far more profitably into Russia.

It opens up the naval portion of the theater, expanding it somewhat, as well as opening up Italy, southern France, and the Balkans as potential sub-theaters. Essentially, losing North Africa exposed the soft underbelly of Axis Europe, making them far more vulnerable. Before, Axis forces had some strategic depth to fall back into (southern France, the Balkans, Germany, Eastern Europe). Now, at least half of that is vulnerable to invasion.

[MattII]

However, the supplies sent to Africa (and those lost on the way there), were quite significant. It would have been better if Hitler had warned Il Duce against opening a second front.

[AdA]

Hemmingway used to joke that he liked his gin and tonics Monty style. 10 to 1. Monty had such a superiority that he had to win. To give Rommel a chance we need to change the numbers. Rommel would need more of everything, and supplies for it all. We might have to start with taking Malta, improving Italian naval performance, etc. Large scale formation flying by squadrons of butterflies required.
To make Torch fail we migh need to dratically change French performance there. Vichy France would have to be both stronger and more pro german. A French victory over Torch, repulsing the allies, would have massive implications and also require massive butterfly intervention.
It would be a good place for people who enjoy France 1941 dream forces to play their game, but in a reversed manner.
Bloch 157 fighters massacrating P38s anyone?
MB175Ts torpedoing Ranger?

[ivanotter]

The French actually did put up a fight.

The coastal batteries were active, the service forces did pin down the US forces.

It is not so easy to get ashore if the "enemy" is fighting back.

So, if Torch turns ugly, how much could the delay be? months?

I do see that for Rommel to hold Monty, a bit more would be needed. It would also take some serious WI's to get there.

Could Rommel have slowed Monty down any more than what he actually did?

So, cold the French have been fighting US/UK for some months? while Rommel delayed Monty? until end 1943?

Ivan

[Snake Featherston]

I also thought that November 1942 was a bit late in the day.

OK, Could Torch have been held up until much later? say beginning of 1944? If that was so, then Brooke's Med strategy would be in tatters (1 million tons of shipping would not have been released and a lot of other things).

German forces being able to do more in the East or just USSR capturing more of Germany faster?

Ivan

The latter. The impending defeat in North Africa would bugger the German ability to respond to Kursk in such a scenario far worse than Husky did. The Germans might actually withdraw more than one division from sheer, dire, necessity, while the defeat takes an enormous bite out of their reserves just like IOTL at one of the worst times for this to be so.

[AdA]

If the allies secure a coastal area in french held Africa they will eventualy overcome through superior numbers. Defeating Torch means that at the end of the day the allies are not able to secure ground, loose ships and men, and are sailing back the survivors.
That would be a game changing event, and the whole allied war effort would have to be rethought.
There are no draws in landing ops. you eithersecure the beachhead or fail. Even if the allies only managed an Anzio, it would be enough to eventualy doom Africa.

[bsmart111]

I think the biggest threat to Torch was if the Germans had broken the allied codes used to control the shipping coming to North Africa (They had broken the British merchant convoy codes) If they had intercepted the invasion convoys before the landings and sunk troopships, etc the setback would have been more than just the loss of ships and troops. The Allies would have had to rethink their entire buildup plan for any invasions or even troop buildups in the European theatre hich would probably have delayed no only the future invasions of Sicily, Italy and France but also the invasios in the Pacific as more escort and transport assets would have been moved to the Atlantic/Europe.

[AdA]

The latter. The impending defeat in North Africa would bugger the German ability to respond to Kursk in such a scenario far worse than Husky did. The Germans might actually withdraw more than one division from sheer, dire, necessity, while the defeat takes an enormous bite out of their reserves just like IOTL at one of the worst times for this to be so.

I assume you're sticking to historic realities and basing your estimate in the assumption that it would be Germans that would be beating back Torch and Monty. At that point there weren't enough germans for that, so Torch would only fail with different french, and stoping monty would require different Italians. I'm ready for the "this is ASB" comments now.
But I don't see a way for the germans to deploy suficient forces to hold north africa longer without getting suicidal in Russia.
North Africa was for the German war effort a bit like putting all you money on a new house and having your car crash right then. Not that they could afford that house anyway.

[AdA]

I think the biggest threat to Torch was if the Germans had broken the allied codes used to control the shipping coming to North Africa (They had broken the British merchant convoy codes) If they had intercepted the invasion convoys before the landings and sunk troopships, etc the setback would have been more than just the loss of ships and troops. The Allies would have had to rethink their entire buildup plan for any invasions or even troop buildups in the European theatre hich would probably have delayed no only the future invasions of Sicily, Italy and France but also the invasios in the Pacific as more escort and transport assets would have been moved to the Atlantic/Europe.

Those convoys were escorted to the point were intercepting them would be near suicidal.
The allies were much more aware of Axis naval moves then the reverse, and would have detected the Axis forces massing for an interception battle, giving them a nice cahance of using their superior (in naval terms by that time hugely) force to wipe them out.

[jmc247]

The French actually did put up a fight.

The coastal batteries were active, the service forces did pin down the US forces.

It is not so easy to get ashore if the "enemy" is fighting back.

So, if Torch turns ugly, how much could the delay be? months?

I do see that for Rommel to hold Monty, a bit more would be needed. It would also take some serious WI's to get there.

Could Rommel have slowed Monty down any more than what he actually did?

So, cold the French have been fighting US/UK for some months? while Rommel delayed Monty? until end 1943?

Ivan

The breaking of the Enigma Code was a big deal (as they knew when the Italian supply ships were coming and from where and the number sunk skyrocketed). They also knew the Afrika Corps punches by then thanks to Enigma. The Axis' own intel source was plugged. Plus at that time Rommel was in very bad physical and emotional shape and was far from being on the top of his game and was making mistakes.

If Axis forces uncovered the Enigma Code had been broken and the Axis' own intel source not been plugged it would have made a real difference on the battlefield. Rommel a few weeks after the fall of Tobruk should have been sent back to Germany for a few months as his health was already deteriorating at that point.

You add those things together and a bigger problem with the Torch landings then you could get Axis forces in Africa surviving to the end of 1943 or early 1944. But, in the end as Allied troops, supplies and weapons were coming in at such a level that defeat was inevitable after a certain point.

Personally I think Axis forces in Africa were defeated at just the right time from an Allied prospective. Had they been defeated a year earlier the likelihood of a 1943 attack on France goes up considerably (which likely would have failed). Had the battle in Africa gone into 1944 let's just say the Soviets take alot more of central Europe then OTL and perhaps Northern Italy as well.

[Snake Featherston]

I assume you're sticking to historic realities and basing your estimate in the assumption that it would be Germans that would be beating back Torch and Monty. At that point there weren't enough germans for that, so Torch would only fail with different french, and stoping monty would require different Italians. I'm ready for the "this is ASB" comments now.
But I don't see a way for the germans to deploy suficient forces to hold north africa longer without getting suicidal in Russia.
North Africa was for the German war effort a bit like putting all you money on a new house and having your car crash right then. Not that they could afford that house anyway.

I'm thinking more in a sense that if Torch somehow fails the Germans decide to reinforce Rommel to get him to drive Monty back to Alamein just as they reinforced North Africa despite strategically the game being lost before they started. Never underestimate Hitler's willpower to override his generals or the ability of his generals to agree with him at the time and then blame him for the whole thing in their memoirs.

[ivanotter]

OK, so let's call it 2 Anzio's and one failure (Atlantic coast landing was a mess).

Let's even give Rommel the additional 250,000 who got to North Africa - Tunis - when their choice was to go into the bag only. Rommel gets them in October 1942 (?)

It is probably right that sooner or later the Allieds will prevail, but it might have been 1943 instead.

That means Scicily is off the cards in 1943.

Overlord?

I can see the Russians storming into Eastern Europe.

The impact of Ultra must be counterd somehow. otherwise this might not fly too high.

Ivan

[Snake Featherston]

Um, North Africa did fall in May of 1943 IOTL. The worst case scenario might be early 1944 if a lot of Murphy's Law happens in a purely one-way fashion.

[ivanotter]

I actually meant late 1943/early 1944.

And with a lot more focus on it from Allied side. I believe that planning and troops were starting to get ready for Sicily before Tunis was finally cleared out.

ivan

[ivanotter]

so, If we assume that it is a bit of a stalemate in North Africa, would Germany then have fewer or more resources for Citadel? Or maybe Hitler would not even attempt it. After all, he was not too keen on attacking in 1943 at all. True to nature, he did, but maybe a glint of sanity could prevail?

If the German focus would be on North Africa, and no Citadel, would it have left Germany in a better position? or worse?

Ivan

[jmc247]

I'm thinking more in a sense that if Torch somehow fails the Germans decide to reinforce Rommel to get him to drive Monty back to Alamein just as they reinforced North Africa despite strategically the game being lost before they started. Never underestimate Hitler's willpower to override his generals or the ability of his generals to agree with him at the time and then blame him for the whole thing in their memoirs.

After the drive on Egypt failed Rommel knew the game was over, it was only a question of when. His plan in 1942 was to get the British to panic after Tobruk (which they were starting to do). Get the Egyptians to uprise (and perhaps the Iraqis again) which they failed to do and win a decient battle in Egypt which he failed to do and then hope the British in a panic flee to Palestine.

Given the supply situation and the American landings in the West I think Rommel would have tried to dig into Egypt like a tick. He realized he would need significant support from local Arabs and even black Africans to defend Egypt and create a DMZ on the Sinai Peninsula to hold the 8th Army at bay while dealing with the U.S. Army on his left flank.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/afrika4.png

[Snake Featherston]

so, If we assume that it is a bit of a stalemate in North Africa, would Germany then have fewer or more resources for Citadel? Or maybe Hitler would not even attempt it. After all, he was not too keen on attacking in 1943 at all. True to nature, he did, but maybe a glint of sanity could prevail?

If the German focus would be on North Africa, and no Citadel, would it have left Germany in a better position? or worse?

Ivan

Fewer, but Hitler still has to attempt it for political reasons, as not doing so merely concedes defeat in the USSR and emboldens Stalin and his armies all the more.

[lucaswillen05]

I don't think Rommel had much chance at Alamein which would have had to have been botched appallingly to hand Rommel even as much as a draw. Torch was something unlikely to have gone as wrong as that although the Tunisian campaign itself was not handled particularly well.

A German breakthrough in July would have led to the loss of Egypt and much of Palestine. But, without Malta and an Arab uprising the Afrika Corps probably would not have got much further than that. An Alamein style battle still most likely takes placce somewhere else and Torch probably stil goes ahead or the forces invi=olved deploy to defend the Middle East oilfields and help8th Army stop Rommel before liberating Palestineand Egypt before pushing on through Libya. Might take longer and delays other Allied plans resulting in the first atomic bombs droppin on Germany

[jmc247]

A German breakthrough in July would have led to the loss of Egypt and much of Palestine. But, without Malta and an Arab uprising the Afrika Corps probably would not have got much further than that. An Alamein style battle still most likely takes placce somewhere else and Torch probably stil goes ahead or the forces invi=olved deploy to defend the Middle East oilfields and help8th Army stop Rommel before liberating Palestineand Egypt before pushing on through Libya. Might take longer and delays other Allied plans resulting in the first atomic bombs droppin on Germany

He didn't have the oil and supplies for a drive on Palestine in July/August, he barely had enough for a drive on Egypt. A successful drive on Egypt would also have wrecked most of Rommel's tanks. By the time he gets resupplied the U.S. Army will have landed and he will have to send some of his forces to protect his left flank and try to keep Libya from falling. By late 1943 I can see it evolving into something like this as American forces push back Axis forces out of Libya.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/map.png

[Snake Featherston]

I don't think Rommel had much chance at Alamein which would have had to have been botched appallingly to hand Rommel even as much as a draw. Torch was something unlikely to have gone as wrong as that although the Tunisian campaign itself was not handled particularly well.

A German breakthrough in July would have led to the loss of Egypt and much of Palestine. But, without Malta and an Arab uprising the Afrika Corps probably would not have got much further than that. An Alamein style battle still most likely takes placce somewhere else and Torch probably stil goes ahead or the forces invi=olved deploy to defend the Middle East oilfields and help8th Army stop Rommel before liberating Palestineand Egypt before pushing on through Libya. Might take longer and delays other Allied plans resulting in the first atomic bombs droppin on Germany

Or more likely a Soviet occupation zone that includes parts of southern Germany in addition to OTL East Germany.....

[AdA]

WW2 for Germany was Russia. The futere of Germany was going to be decided in a death match with the USSR and everything else, from Africa to the bombings to Overlord was a sideshow. A big sideshow in some cases. Since the Germans in russia were allways short of everything, the sensible thing in Africa would have been not to go there, tell Mussolini to pull its forces out of Russia and send them there.
If Italy failed, let it fall. If Germany couldn't win in russia by 42 it was over and no matter how bad things went in the Med there was nothing the Allies could do there in time to decide the issue in Russia.
The only way for Africa to be decisive is to dramaticaly change the course of the war in such a way that the Italians score amazing wins in 40/41 by themselves, or get the French to be a strong axis partner.

If by a miracle Rommel had taken Alexandria the Auk wa ready to retreat along the Nile, get suplies from Sudan and fight back.

[Grimm Reaper]

For Operation Torch to fail would require a much more substantial level of resistance from the French forces in North Africa.

This, in turn, ends the pretense that De Gaulle and his handful of men are in any way representative of France and Free France is cut off and dissolved while the Allies declare war on the (Vichy) French government. France ends WWII as one of the defeated Axis.

On the positive side the US probably embraces Ho Chi Minh...

[ivanotter]

Reaper: Yes. A much harder fight by the French:

""rench forces in North Africa.
There were 55,000 of them in Morocco, 50,000 in Algeria, 15,000 in Tunisia. Most are native infantry units with French officers, leavened with Foreign Legion regiments, Chasseurs d'Afrique, and colorful Zouaves. These forces, left out of the 1940 defeat, are veteran troops, at home in North Africa, experienced at desert war. Veteran outfits like the Foreign Legion are the stuff of legends. Even so, their rifles and equipment are obsolescent. They will have to rely on discipline to make up for technical deficiencies.

They are backed up by 12 units of motorized field artillery, and about 270 tanks in Morocco and Algeria, mostly Hotchkiss H35s and Somua S35s, armed with 37/47 mm guns. In 1940, these were among the best tanks in Europe. But they are outclassed by the British and American Sherman.

The French deploy about 500 planes, including a few Dewoitine 520s, which are outstanding fighters, able to take on the German Me 109. The rest are a mix of elderly MS 406s and Curtiss Hawks.

The French Navy.
France's most powerful battleship, Richelieu, is at Dakar. Her sister ship, Jean Bart, uncompleted, has been towed to Casablanca to avoid German or British seizure. She cannot move, but her 15-inch guns are operating. The other French ships in North Africa are light cruisers and destroyers. The main fleet included the modern battlecruisers Strasbourg and Dunkerque.
""" Axis Afrika site"

That was a lot.

Now, if that had been put to good use, could we have had a couple of "Anzio's"?

Ivan

[Simreeve]

His plan in 1942 was to get the British to panic after Tobruk (which they were starting to do).Meh. Some staff-wallahs and civliians back at Alex, not so much the actual fighting troops...

[jmc247]

Meh. Some staff-wallahs and civliians back at Alex, not so much the actual fighting troops...

Yes, I am well aware of who was burning documents and making plans for a potental move to Palestine. The people who matter wouldn't be convinced to do so without a military defeat in western Egypt and an uprising of Egyptians.

[MattII]

IMO the critical battle was Tobruk in 1941, if Rommel had won there he wouldn't have had to retreat because he'd have been sitting on a port, which supplies could (probably, unless the facilities demolished) be brought through, and at that time the main British defence was still at Mersa Matruh, which would have allowed him to cut them off. Of course, whether this would have given him victory is debatable, but it probably have allowed him to Grab El Alamein and dig in strongly while awaiting resupply.

[jmc247]

IMO the critical battle was Tobruk in 1941, if Rommel had won there he wouldn't have had to retreat because he'd have been sitting on a port, which supplies could (probably, unless the facilities demolished) be brought through, and at that time the main British defence was still at Mersa Matruh, which would have allowed him to cut them off. Of course, whether this would have given him victory is debatable, but it probably have allowed him to Grab El Alamein and dig in strongly while awaiting resupply.

Yes, taking Tobruk in 1941 would have put him in a much better position then taking it a year later by which time the 8th Army was vastly more skilled and well equipped.

[StevoJH]

Were the British and Commonwealth troops captured in the Desert moved back to Prison Camps in Italy and Germany? Or were they freed when the African Campaign ended?

[jmc247]

Were the British and Commonwealth troops captured in the Desert moved back to Prison Camps in Italy and Germany? Or were they freed when the African Campaign ended?

Most were sent to POW camps in Italy as this was considered Italy's theater of war even though power wise Italian control of the war effort diminished when they called in big brother for help and when Italy started to fall apart in late 1943 the POWs were sent to Germany.