Operation Torch without the USA

[fort-capuzzo]

Would or could Operation Torch go ahead without American involvement?
Let's say America and Japan come to some sort of diplomatic and economic agreement in 1941 keeping America out of the war.

[HMS Warspite]

Technically, I would say yes, since the US were already going to participate in the War in Europe anyway, following the line Roosevelt had walked so far sine the outbreak of the conflict. It was only a matter of time to have the USA becomming involved in the fight against Germany. The Lend-Lease Act was one of the most controversial things pointing to that involvement, as was the US occupation of Iceland, to relieve the overstretched British in the Battle for the Atlantic. The only thing missing was US armed forces involved directly in the fighting.

[The Red]

The US still probably joins the war in Europe before 1943.

Torch could probbaly still have happened without them, especailly if Britain could have pulled back substantial forces from the Pacific thanks to the 'understanding' with the Japanese.

[Intosh]

Torch operation is impossible without americans troops.

British attacks on Mers-El-Kebir and later british and free french attacks or conquests of Senegal, Lebanon and Syria spill a lot of bad blood between Vichy and Allies forces.

The Americans provided the troops landing in Morocco and in Algeria, and the Vichy troops accepted to negociate. It will not the case with the British or the Free French.

[fort-capuzzo]

Originally Posted by Intosh

Torch operation is impossible without americans troops.

British attacks on Mers-El-Kebir and later british and free french attacks or conquests of Senegal, Lebanon and Syria spill a lot of bad blood between Vichy and Allies forces.

The Americans provided the troops landing in Morocco and in Algeria, and the Vichy troops accepted to negociate. It will not the case with the British or the Free French.

It is not impossible.
It just may mean the French fight harder.

[KillerT]

There were a hell of a lot of British troops in Torch-I should know as my Great Uncle was one of them and he's still there at Tabarka Ras Rajel CWWG cemetery. He was in 46th Division although 6th Armouredb Div, the 78th Battleaxe Division, the Paras and commandos were also deployed. In addition to that most of the naval resources were British, so I think yup Torch would have been possible -probably on a smaller scale but still doable.

[Gridley]

At a guess, yes, it could have, but I suggest digging into what amphibious lift capacity the non-US allies had at that time. It isn't just about troops and warships.

[von kressenstein]

Originally Posted by fort-capuzzo

It just may mean the French fight harder.

I almost spit my coffee out my nose onto my monitor at that

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by von kressenstein

I almost spit my coffee out my nose onto my monitor at that

Spare me,

The historical French win / loss ratio is no different than the USA. This is especially so as the United States has only faced one opponent of somewhat equal size and potentialy somewhat equal capabilities (U.S. Civil War).

Though I would never slander my nation's military, sharing a border with Mexico or various Indian tribes is not the same as not only sharing a border with Germany, but also being out numbered by them as well.

[corditeman]

...I try to remind people that it was British and Canadian troops who established the initial Normandy beach-head - the US troops suffered a Dieppe and nearly pulled out. So there, Clinton!

My father having served on Sword beach and at Mulberry 'B' (Arromanches) I think I have an jnterest in this.

[Intosh]

Originally Posted by von kressenstein

I almost spit my coffee out my nose onto my monitor at that

OMG, it is so difficult to continue to love the USA as I love them when confront to this kind of reaction...

EDIT

[Intosh]

Originally Posted by KillerT

There were a hell of a lot of British troops in Torch-I should know as my Great Uncle was one of them and he's still there at Tabarka Ras Rajel CWWG cemetery. He was in 46th Division although 6th Armouredb Div, the 78th Battleaxe Division, the Paras and commandos were also deployed. In addition to that most of the naval resources were British, so I think yup Torch would have been possible -probably on a smaller scale but still doable.

OK sorry, don't know the British were here also...

[mowque]

As the above posters states, the logistics becomes MUCH tougher without the nearly limitedness American industrial muscle full steam behind you.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by mowque

As the above posters states, the logistics becomes MUCH tougher without the nearly limitedness American industrial muscle full steam behind you.

mowque

Logistics would be the big issue but presuming the will was there and it should be then the attack would probably go ahead. I think historically the toughest opposition the French put up was actually against the American landing forces rather than the British.

One big impact might be if Britain goes with it's initial plans of landing further east and probably capturing much of northern Tunisia before the Germans could reinforce the region. That could mean that reinforcement is pretty much impossible and Rommel and the A-K would have British forces attacking their rear as they retreat to Tripoli.

The down side of this is that you wouldn't have had ~18 divs I think it was and a lot of the Luftwaffe transport capacity committed to the operation and at least some might have been committed to the crisis in Russia.

Steve