No Italy in WW2: British options.

Derwit · Sep 17, 2014

I'm sure this has been done before, but what if for whatever reason Mussolini decides that Italy should remain neutral in 1940. What do the Brits do with no ground war to fight? I'm particularly interested on your view of what the Brits do once the Germans launch Barbarossa in 1941.

My personal favorite is for British forces to deploy through Archangel and Murmansk and join the Russian forces fighting Army Group North. Is this at all possible?

Or would the Brits try amphibious landings to take the pressure of the Russians, and if so where?

Or do they just continue with the bomber offensive and let the Russians do all the fighting (not very popular with the Russians, Stalin wanted a second front in 1942!).

Saphroneth · Sep 17, 2014

Derwit said:
I'm sure this has been done before, but what if for whatever reason Mussolini decides that Italy should remain neutral in 1940. What do the Brits do with no ground war to fight? I'm particularly interested on your view of what the Brits do once the Germans launch Barbarossa in 1941.
.

Hmm.
No Italy - Med is British-controlled, or at least safe. More than halves convoy route length to the far east, makes North Africa available for resources, and the like. British production soars with more raw materials to hand.
Sealion never being quite as realistic an option (fewer tanks to the Middle East, for example) might mean one or two promising projects aren't canned.
The Brits can send a very nasty fleet to Singapore, earlier than OTL, and also reinforce Malaya more. This has knock-on effects if the Japanese go all scream-and-leap.
Without the need for amphibious lift in the Med, then the Allies actually WILL have enough amphib capability to launch a second front in 1943, if not sooner. (1942 is probably too soon, but 1943 should be entirely manageable). At that point, the Sherman hasn't passed its sell by date, so the battles in the interior go better as a general rule. Fun results.

Torqumada · Sep 17, 2014

What does this mean on the German side of things? More troops, tanks, planes and material for invading Russia?

Torqumada

Saphroneth · Sep 17, 2014

Torqumada said:
What does this mean on the German side of things? More troops, tanks, planes and material for invading Russia?

Torqumada

More trucks, not all that many more tanks, planes a bit more, some more materiel (but again not much), and several hundred thousand Italian troops removed from the ORBAT in their USSR operations.

jsb · Sep 17, 2014

AN Allies (and Italy wank).

Without the med GB can just sit back and let the 2 nicest regimes in history have fun. (pity about everybody in between but GB doesn't have to care about that and cant do much anyway)

By 43 or 44 without US the British will be ready to lunch the liberation of France v a weekend Germany.

Without the med then Singapore may well hold as the RN can deploy in force (and that will change the IJN thinking a lot)

JSB

Alratan · Sep 17, 2014

I'd need to find the reference again, but I recall reading that the overwhelming majority of trucks the Germans used in North Africa were captured from the British, so wouldn't have been in their hands anyway if the campaign hadn't happened.

pattersonautobody · Sep 17, 2014

It's better for Germany. Butterflies away Greek invasion, which hampered German logistics and the Luftwaffe before Barbarossa (it has 1,000 tanks and 1.1 million men total). Without Great Britain a threat in Greece, Yugoslavia probably gets brought into the Axis.

This change alone, though not guaranteeing German victory in 1941 in Russia, means Barbarossa starts six weeks sooner which means Sevastopol or Leningrad likely fall. The Germans will have more trucks and fuel to spare for their Russian campaign. Moscow is unlikely in my mind. However, the bombing campaign against Germany is even harsher.

Pretty much the war goes better in 41-42, better in the East in 43, and worse 44-45. If there is a D-Day 43 and it fails, Stalin might sue for peace.

Lee-Sensei · Sep 17, 2014

Derwit said:
I'm sure this has been done before, but what if for whatever reason Mussolini decides that Italy should remain neutral in 1940. What do the Brits do with no ground war to fight? I'm particularly interested on your view of what the Brits do once the Germans launch Barbarossa in 1941.

My personal favorite is for British forces to deploy through Archangel and Murmansk and join the Russian forces fighting Army Group North. Is this at all possible?

Or would the Brits try amphibious landings to take the pressure of the Russians, and if so where?

Or do they just continue with the bomber offensive and let the Russians do all the fighting (not very popular with the Russians, Stalin wanted a second front in 1942!).

1) Invading Norway.

2) Focus on Japan while defending the home islands with their superior Fleet.

Lee-Sensei · Sep 17, 2014

pattersonautobody said:
It's better for Germany. Butterflies away Greek invasion, which hampered German logistics and the Luftwaffe before Barbarossa (it has 1,000 tanks and 1.1 million men total). Without Great Britain a threat in Greece, Yugoslavia probably gets brought into the Axis.

This change alone, though not guaranteeing German victory in 1941 in Russia, means Barbarossa starts six weeks sooner which means Sevastopol or Leningrad likely fall. The Germans will have more trucks and fuel to spare for their Russian campaign. Moscow is unlikely in my mind. However, the bombing campaign against Germany is even harsher.

Pretty much the war goes better in 41-42, better in the East in 43, and worse 44-45. If there is a D-Day 43 and it fails, Stalin might sue for peace.

Barbarossa probably goes better, but not by much. Germany's incredibly powerful considering it's size, but Russia's just to big, the winters are to harsh and they have to many men for Germany to win this fight. The only way they manage is if Hitler let's Stalin sue for peace when the German militaries pushed deep into Russia in exchange for the Ukraine and perhaps a bit of the Crimea, but that's not Hitler's style. Germany invading 6 weeks before Greece runs right into the Russian Rasputitsa.

Cryhavoc101 · Sep 17, 2014

Hmmmm No Italy eh?

An additional 3 or 4 Divisions of Infantry possibly freed up + at least 1 Tank Brigade (The British had several Hundred 'Modern' tanks in Egypt alone) - Less chance of Italian driven uprisings in places like Iraq etc

Not sure about the Strength of French forces in the region (North Africa + Syria etc)

Both would benefit from more aircraft being available in France

The Royal Navy is less stretched

So the effective fighting Strength of the Mobile Forces in north East France in May 1940 is potentially about 4 British Mechanised Infantry Divisions and an Armour Division (a 50% increase) + an unknown number of French Formations - possibly more if we factor in the freedom of communication that having the Med free of Conflict gives the Allies.....

I'm going to call it - Fall Gelb fails - or rather gets bogged down and becomes a more attritional based conflict more akin to WW1

More Royal Navy and French Navy Assets are available for the Norway campaign (including an additional couple of Carriers and Battleships) - possibly resulting in that campaign bogging down for the Germans and with no fall of France the Northern parts can continue to be occupied by the Allies.

Lee-Sensei · Sep 17, 2014

Cryhavoc101 said:
Hmmmm No Italy eh?

An additional 3 or 4 Divisions of Infantry possibly freed up + at least 1 Tank Brigade (The British had several Hundred 'Modern' tanks in Egypt alone) - Less chance of Italian driven uprisings in places like Iraq etc

Not sure about the Strength of French forces in the region (North Africa + Syria etc)

Both would benefit from more aircraft being available in France

The Royal Navy is less stretched

So the effective fighting Strength of the Mobile Forces in north East France in May 1940 is potentially about 4 British Mechanised Infantry Divisions and an Armour Division (a 50% increase) + an unknown number of French Formations - possibly more if we factor in the freedom of communication that having the Med free of Conflict gives the Allies.....

I'm going to call it - Fall Gelb fails - or rather gets bogged down and becomes a more attritional based conflict more akin to WW1

More Royal Navy and French Navy Assets are available for the Norway campaign (including an additional couple of Carriers and Battleships) - possibly resulting in that campaign bogging down for the Germans and with no fall of France the Northern parts can continue to be occupied by the Allies.

I doubt the British and French would be able to stop the Blitzkrieg in 1940.

Uruk · Sep 17, 2014

The fall of France wouldnt be affected since the Italians didnt join until June and even after that its hard to imagine that the UK wouldnt leave rather large forces in the Med to keep an eye on the Italians.

ObssesedNuker · Sep 17, 2014

pattersonautobody said:
It's better for Germany. Butterflies away Greek invasion, which hampered German logistics and the Luftwaffe before Barbarossa (it has 1,000 tanks and 1.1 million men total).

The Yugoslav-Greek invasion had zero impact on German logistical build-up for Barbarossa. Creveld debunks that myth in detail in his book Supplying War.

If there is a D-Day 43 and it fails, Stalin might sue for peace.

Post-Barbarossa, a Soviet-German peace is only possible in the context of "the other side has been wiped out".

Uruk said:
and even after that its hard to imagine that the UK wouldnt leave rather large forces in the Med to keep an eye on the Italians.

They don't have to commit as large a force though.

There is also a question of Stalin's complacency. With Germany committed to no ground fight in Africa (and thus no ground fight anywhere), would Stalin be more willing to accept the evidence that Germany is going to attack him? A Wehrmacht that attacks a Red Army actually mobilized and expecting a fight is going to be worse for the Germans and better for the Soviets, regardless of the additional assets from the Afrika Corps.

Deckhand · Sep 17, 2014

pattersonautobody said:
It's better for Germany. Butterflies away Greek invasion, which hampered German logistics and the Luftwaffe before Barbarossa (it has 1,000 tanks and 1.1 million men total). Without Great Britain a threat in Greece, Yugoslavia probably gets brought into the Axis.

This change alone, though not guaranteeing German victory in 1941 in Russia, means Barbarossa starts six weeks sooner which means Sevastopol or Leningrad likely fall. The Germans will have more trucks and fuel to spare for their Russian campaign. Moscow is unlikely in my mind. However, the bombing campaign against Germany is even harsher.

Pretty much the war goes better in 41-42, better in the East in 43, and worse 44-45. If there is a D-Day 43 and it fails, Stalin might sue for peace.

The rasputitsa says no to you. OTL was about the earliest Barbarossa could go without being an infantry only assault for the first month or so.

They could do it with immobile panzer divisions i suppose. I am sure it would go as well or better than OTL.

PremixedBox · Sep 17, 2014

My opinion

Well since Italy is neutral it won't launch any offensives in North Africa, the Greek area, and the Mediterranean. That being said, the Germans would have to look for a warmer-water port (similar to Russia's problem with their ports). Also, the British wouldn't have been hampered as much in the Mediterranean (since the Germans didn't build up their surface fleet as much as the other armed forces) meaning that their fleet would control the seas. But I doubt even with the extra manpower that the British would receive that they could stop the German offensive. I believe that British would just have had more troops available (as would the Germans). But Bernard Montgomery wouldn't have gotten recognition for winning in North Africa. And the legendary "Desert Fox" Erwin Rommel wouldn't have control over the Afrika Korps (the Korps wouldn't have existed either). So without either of these dynamic leaders both sides would have struggled to find different generals.

ObssesedNuker · Sep 17, 2014

Deckhand said:
They could do it with immobile panzer divisions i suppose. I am sure it would go as well or better than OTL.

Haha. No. Infantry advance much slower then tanks to begin with and are affected by the mud practically just as much. Attacking in May '41 means the Germans are just straight up flushing the advantages of tactical and strategic surprise right down the drain.

Salamander · Sep 17, 2014

Vichy France (if it occurs) would be a problem for both the British & Germans.

For the British: They couldn't be sure Vichy wouldn't give the Germans access to the southern coast of France or French North Africa.

For the Germans: They would be paranoid of a possible British landing in the south of France. What if there was a coup against Petain & Laval resulting in the British landing unopposed at Marseille and/or Toulon? Worse, unopposed and actively supported by the French?

Emperor Julian · Sep 17, 2014

So, assuming that the end situation of Europe is roughly the same (beaten Nazis, Communist East, etc.), how long would Mussolini's regime last? Until his death? Or would the allies blockade his country and collapse the regime via sanction? Or could someone continue it even longer? Fascism would not be as discredited in Italy at least.

Starkad · Sep 17, 2014

Cryhavoc101 said:
Hmmmm No Italy eh?

An additional 3 or 4 Divisions of Infantry possibly freed up + at least 1 Tank Brigade (The British had several Hundred 'Modern' tanks in Egypt alone) - Less chance of Italian driven uprisings in places like Iraq etc

Not sure about the Strength of French forces in the region (North Africa + Syria etc)

Both would benefit from more aircraft being available in France

The Royal Navy is less stretched

So the effective fighting Strength of the Mobile Forces in north East France in May 1940 is potentially about 4 British Mechanised Infantry Divisions and an Armour Division (a 50% increase) + an unknown number of French Formations - possibly more if we factor in the freedom of communication that having the Med free of Conflict gives the Allies.....

I'm going to call it - Fall Gelb fails - or rather gets bogged down and becomes a more attritional based conflict more akin to WW1

More Royal Navy and French Navy Assets are available for the Norway campaign (including an additional couple of Carriers and Battleships) - possibly resulting in that campaign bogging down for the Germans and with no fall of France the Northern parts can continue to be occupied by the Allies.

Uhm, since Italy didn't join till after May 10th OTL, I don't see why British & French dispositions would chance until after Italy doesn't enter the fray.

Unless of course they somehow KNOW ahead of time that Italy will not join ?

Paul V McNutt · Sep 17, 2014

My POD would be that Mussolini is overthrown. I always thought that a neutral Italy meant many more Commonwealth forces in Malaysia and Burma. If the Japanese are stopped this means a faster Pacific War.