Essai en Guerre: an FFO-inspired TL

[steamboy]

Good update! The Duquesne probably only survived because her thin armour wasn't setting off too many shells as there wasn't something suitably solid enough for the fuze to hit something hard enough then go "Seig Heil!" and go boom and the two La Galissonnière-class were considerably better protected than the 'heavy' cruiser.

One thing I will suggest, do not use the Contre-Torpilleur's like the Fantastique's and other large destroyers like them on convoy duty in the Atlantic. They're not built for it. Whilst magnificent ships they were flawed and very focused on surface actions. Their high speed also gave them a short range as their engines were fuel hungry even at low speed. Keep them in the Med, hopefully improving their AA as that wasn't very good either.

 

[spkaca]

There was a 250m long dry dock in Dakar.

That's impressive - that's comfortably big enough for a La Galissonniere class cruiser.

a common thought on this AH forum is what to do with the MN Bearn. Even by 1940, it was too slow and too cramped to be a modern fleet carrier, but any flight deck should have some utility.

Like the Hermes, her obvious role is escorting convoys, where speed is less vital.

I think in OTL the MN Bearn acted as an aircraft transport, in TTL that's likely to continue

Yes, and there are plenty of aircraft to ferry. She will probably do a bit of both.

Also with the RAF - no Bostons means at last a Blenheim replacement

Yes, the sooner the better. As the British face a reduced/ non-existent invasion scare in summer 1940, that should mean no hiatus in Mosquito development in June-July 1940. And the Blitz has been less, so less time lost to air raid disruptions - possibly de Havilland will manage to keep their promise to deliver 50 Mosquitoes by the end of 1941. Pity the poor fellows who have to soldier on through 1941 flying Blenheims, though.

 

[spkaca]

Just my opinion, but maybe the best compromise, if they do not want to be completely reliant on USA for tanks, is the Ram Tank? It uses M3 chassis, which is already in production and in use, so there are certainly benefits there, French probably have the most experience in regards to cast hulls in the world at this point in time, so that should also be factored in. It is not M4 Sherman, but it is perhaps the best option they have, and that allows them to field a tank which would remain competitive for the duration of the conflict.

This sounds quite likely - I could well see French engineers heading to Canada on this project.

The Duquesne probably only survived because her thin armour wasn't setting off too many shells

Well, for a given value of "survived". I doubt she'll be fixed much before the end of the war.

 

[steamboy]

Well, for a given value of "survived". I doubt she'll be fixed much before the end of the war.

Aye, she's probably more use as a source of spare parts rather that rebuilding her and quietly write her off as a total constructive loss whilst publicly saying "Oh we're fixing her for sure!"

 

[X Oristos]

There is a very decent interim solution to rearm the French in the short term: the 395 M1917 75mm gun the Americans sent to Britain in OTL. Without an invasion panic there is no need for these guns in the UK. On the other hand, they would be very handy in french hands during autumn 1940.

A question for for our French friends: What happened to the colonial troops that were captured before the Armistice in the Metropole? Were they released later on or the army that Weygand secretely built in North Africa consisted of green recruits?

If the colonial units weren't repatriated after the Armistice, then Fighting France under the timeline's conditions has the potential to build a somewhat larger army than what Giraud was trying in OTL.

 

[Starinski]

There is a very decent interim solution to rearm the French in the short term: the 395 M1917 75mm gun the Americans sent to Britain in OTL. Without an invasion panic there is no need for these guns in the UK. On the other hand, they would be very handy in french hands during autumn 1940.

A question for for our French friends: What happened to the colonial troops that were captured before the Armistice in the Metropole? Were they released later on or the army that Weygand secretely built in North Africa consisted of green recruits?

If the colonial units weren't repatriated after the Armistice, then Fighting France under the timeline's conditions has the potential to build a somewhat larger army than what Giraud was trying in OTL.

I'm not sure, but I think they were kept in France, as the Germans didn't want to host Untermenschen on their home soil.

 

[X Oristos]

I'm not sure, but I think they were kept in France, as the Germans didn't want to host Untermenschen on their home soil.

Thank you for the reply!

I am asking because the colonial Active and Series A divisions were really good. So, I was always wondering what happened to the officers, NCOs and soldiers - be they Frenchmen or from the colonies. I am asking to see if Weygand's Army in NA had these original cadre or if he had to develop the cadre for his 137k ( plus 60k in the mountains) from scratch.

If there are already 6 divisions worth of Europeans in North Africa, they can provide the cadre for a very significant force. My understanding is that in OTL the 1942 Armée d'Afrique didn't have whole "European" units and thus lacked men with technical expertise and didn't have enough European officers and NCOs for a further expansion.

 

[X Oristos]

Yes, with effects that will build over time: "compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe".

One of my favorite quotes!

Speaking of compound interest in the Allied logistics, these are the differences so far:

-The Allies have gained 1,5 million tons of shipping that was originally kept by Vichy.
- With the Hipper gone, >38k tons of shipping have been saved.
- By cancelling raids by the Twins, 115k tons of shipping have been saved.

Between the additional tonnage the fewer losses to surface raiders and the French warships and bases, the compound interest will be the equivalent of holding a Vanguard Index fund for 30 years.

 

[spkaca]

There is a very decent interim solution to rearm the French in the short term: the 395 M1917 75mm gun the Americans sent to Britain in OTL. Without an invasion panic there is no need for these guns in the UK. On the other hand, they would be very handy in french hands during autumn 1940.

These 75mm did indeed go to French North Africa, along with the rest of the US shipments - see part 2.2:

However, at least in basic weapons and ammunition, the men had enough, aided by shipments from America that came in during the summer. Due to the urgency some ships came all the way to Bizerta despite the danger of air or submarine attack, bringing old rifles, machine guns, ammunition, and soixante-quinze cannon - tales, perhaps apocryphal, spread of gunners who found themselves once more using the very same guns they (or their fathers) had used in 1918.

Later on there would probably be some 155mm GPFs as well, either from the US or Syria.

Time for an update - time to hear from Girolamo again.

 

[spkaca]

Extract from La Follia, Girolamo Leoni, ch.5

We knew by late January that we could send no succour to Tripoli. The Germans were no longer even responding to our questions on the matter. The only project they wanted to even discuss was an attack on Malta, but the Navy would not hear of it...
On the last day of the month the Duce called the General to see him. I went along, of course, along with the rest of his staff. ‘What is this I hear from Balbo,’ he complained, ‘that he can no longer resist the French? He still has 50,000 men, by his own admission. He has hundreds of aircraft.’ I felt embarrassed that my country’s leader could show such ignorance of such vital matters. The General allowed me to answer.
‘He has 50,000 men, but not a single formed combat unit bigger than a company,’ I said. ‘The men you speak of are fugitives and rear-echelon troops. They have no cohesion, no transport except mules, no weapons but rifles.’ I felt myself reddening, but plunged on, knowing that I owed this to the poor soldiers in Libya. ‘I have read the serviceability reports from the air force.’ I just restrained myself from asking, have you? ‘Less than fifty planes are serviceable, they can make only one sortie per day because of the fuel shortage. Soon they will not be able to fly at all. The enemy have three times as many in the air every day. The bravest of men cannot fight with such poor means.’
The General made a gesture, as if seeing my agitation and fearing what I might say, and interrupted. ‘Duce, we foresaw all this, we have often spoken of it. In my opinion the Marshal has done well to last even this long.’ The meeting broke up soon after, and we left in low spirits...
The war in Libya had become a race between the English and French, which French III Corps won. On February 10th Marshal Balbo put on his best uniform and drove a few kilometres west along the coast road under a flag of truce. The meeting should have taken place sooner; initially the French had proposed that General Bethouart accept the surrender. However, Balbo believed that a mere corps commander was beneath his dignity, or at any rate beneath the dignity of the Governor-General of Libya, and had insisted on meeting General Olry himself.
It is possible that the Marshal could have escaped. However, he stated a wish to share the fate of his men. It is also possible that he did not rely on the safety of flight, as the French had by now begun aggressive patrols over Tripoli and its airfields, and he had no wish to perish in a plane crash. Many also felt that he had become sick of the war, and had come to believe that, even if it were true that neutrality was impossible in such a struggle, Italy was on the wrong side. Later events, of course, tend to confirm this. After a brief conversation, the Marshal, the city of Tripoli and all that was left of the Italian forces in Libya passed into Allied hands. Our empire in Africa now comprised only Ethiopia, which, isolated as it was, could not hold out for long. The Duce said nothing useful, and on that day all our hearts broke. With hindsight, I see that for the next two years we merely drifted along, like ghosts.

 

[X Oristos]

I was thinking that with the Allied enjoying absolute naval superiority, the Dodecanese will be a prime target as soon as possible. Before the Germans captured mainland Greece and Crete, the Dodecanese was the only place from where the Axis could bomb Haifa and mine Suez. After June 1940, Haifa started to become the fuel source for the RN ships. It was attacked and damaged on July 1940, although further attacks didn't continue. The Allies just by holding Rhodes and Crete can create a shield against the most valuable supply routes they have in east Mediterranean.

Edit: The French certainly wanted to capture the Dodecanese and in May 1940 they were making plans and arrangements.

 

[spkaca]

I was thinking that with the Allied enjoying absolute naval superiority, the Dodecanese will be a prime target as soon as possible.

Certainly - but first there will be a campaign on the mainland. In the medium term I see the campaigning in the Aegean as likely to have something of the same back-and-forth quality as the OTL North Africa campaign. The Allies won't find it all easy going - in the absence of an active front in North Africa, Italy's war effort will concentrate in Greece/ the Aegean. One of my differences with the 'canonical' FFO is that as I understand it they have the Allies fight very effectively on the Greek mainland - too effectively in my view. Logistics and air power massively favour the Axis in Greece.

 

[X Oristos]

Certainly - but first there will be a campaign on the mainland. In the medium term I see the campaigning in the Aegean as likely to have something of the same back-and-forth quality as the OTL North Africa campaign. The Allies won't find it all easy going - in the absence of an active front in North Africa, Italy's war effort will concentrate in Greece/ the Aegean. One of my differences with the 'canonical' FFO is that as I understand it they have the Allies fight very effectively on the Greek mainland - too effectively in my view. Logistics and air power massively favour the Axis in Greece.

I would strongly disagree here for various reasons.

First of all, the italian effort cannot be any greater than in OTL due to logistics. At the beginning of the Greco-Italian War, Valona had a capacity of 1200 tons per day, Durres 800 tons and Shëngjin 200. In OTL, by late March 1941 the Italians had managed to deploy 28 divisions in Albania. That was the absolute maximum they could afford in any scenario. Even so, they couldn't provide the supply and roads for all 28 divisions to attack. The italian maximum offensive effort during Operation Primavera had 9 divisions attacking a sector of the front. They were beaten back by inferior (in both numbers and material) greek forces. Even without a Libyan Front, this is the best they can do.

Without a North African Front, the Allies need a secondary front to bloody they green troops and to be seen politically as they are doing something against the Germans. Greece would be excellent for this purpose. The terrain is mountainous and the Germans will have to capture one mountain range after the other. Since attacking through mountain ranges of 1600-2900m is not the best idea, most of the attacks will come through a handfull of passes.

In OTL there were hardly any troops to properly cover the front. Just 2 infantry divisions (minus one brigade that arrived later) and 1 armoured brigade. In a FFO scenario were Tripoli falls at the end of January, the Allies can easily afford sending at least 2 full corps in Greece including a whole armoured division. They can cover the Monastir Gap effectively. After they retreat to the Olympus-Pindus Line the Greek Army will have retreated as well. The Greeks will have 16 infantry divisions to cover a limited frontline in Epirus and keep the Italians at bay. Then the Germans will have to assault a naturally fortified position (Kamvounia Mountains 1600m, Olympus 2900m, Ossa 1900m) that is traversed by just three macdam roads. If the Anglo-French have 2 full corps, I don't see the Germans succeeding.

The Allies have a unique advantage of logistics: they are supplied via one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean (Piraeus), a secondary developed port (Volos) and they have internal lines of communication. In contrast, the Germans will be supplied by a single railroad in the Belgrade-Salonica axis. Long-term I don't see how the Germans will be able to supply more than 6 frontline divisions this way. They would have to take thousands of trucks from Barbarossa - and it won't happen. Last but not least, the original german plans for the invasion of Greece included the scenario of just seizing the northern part of the country and then return to finish the job after the Soviet Union was out of the game. Frankly, this is the most plausible case in my honest opinion.

 

[spkaca]

OK lots to think about here.

Even without a Libyan Front, this is the best they can do.

Agreed as to Italian likely offensive capability in the Balkan theatre.

Without a North African Front, the Allies need a secondary front to bloody they green troops and to be seen politically as they are doing something

Agreed.

In a FFO scenario were Tripoli falls at the end of January, the Allies can easily afford sending at least 2 full corps in Greece including a whole armoured division.

In the ATL I have Tripoli falling mid-Feb. I agree that given the easier shipping situation, getting four divisions including one armoured to Greece before the Germans complete the conquest of Yugoslavia (which incidentally I have assumed goes as OTL: a simplifying assumption) should be doable.

The Allies have a unique advantage of logistics: they are supplied via one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean (Piraeus), a secondary developed port (Volos) and they have internal lines of communication.

In that respect their theatre logistics are easier. My comment about the Axis advantage was more to do with the respective distances from the ultimate sources of war materiel. The Axis have to move their materiel hundreds of kilometres, the Allies have to move theirs thousands. But the point is well taken.
OTL Piraeus was devastated in the Clan Fraser explosion. In my draft ATL (spoiler alert) I butterflied this; then question then becomes, how much of difference would that event make to the Allied ability to sustain their forces?

Long-term I don't see how the Germans will be able to supply more than 6 frontline divisions this way. They would have to take thousands of trucks from Barbarossa - and it won't happen.

6 divisions against 4 Anglo-French in mountains; that isn't brilliant, agreed. And I particularly agree that Hitler will not permit the Greek campaign to derail the Barbarossa timetable (which I take to be the meaning of the latter sentence), which was my biggest single concern about FFO/ FTL itself. To him Barbarossa was the Real War.
My thinking about the Greek campaign hitherto has been dominated by the air factor. I have assumed that the Germans will manage to gain air superiority over Greece almost as quickly as OTL. My reasons for thinking this: from Athens to the frontier of the Reich is about 1000 miles. By contrast the British air effort ultimately has to be sustained from the UK which is several times further. (Against this, though, is the consideration that the British effort can be sustained by sea; it might be easier to supply a British air unit based near Piraeus from the UK than to supply overland a Luftwaffe unit based in southern Yugoslavia.) Given that ground campaigns in WW2 depended on the air factor more than any other, this is the question that needs answering.
From your link to the Italian spring offensive article: "Following the successful Greek defence, the Greek Army as a whole possessed only a single month's supply of heavy artillery ammunition and insufficient supplies to equip its reserves; requests were immediately sent to their British allies for millions of artillery shells and tens of millions of rifle rounds. This proved to be a logistical impossibility for the British." Presumably, though, supplying the Greeks is much easier in the ATL. The Allies have just captured significant Italian stocks, for one thing. On the other hand, the Greeks will soon be facing the Germans, and their position then will become even harder.
I do think that the Allies probably can't hold Greece in the medium term. The Greeks can only fight for so long against heavy odds. If it's true that the Allies will lose ground slowly against the Germans, they surely won't be able to gain any. I suspect, then, a more prolonged defence on the Olympus line, which will cost the Germans heavily. How long could that last? From the point of view of the war as a whole, the Allies will do well to sustain the defence of Greece until Barbarossa starts. The Luftwaffe attrition alone would make a huge difference.
Here I was thinking that my ATL was being kind to the Allies by letting them win the battle of Crete! I am somewhat perplexed by how to take this forward. My feeling is that Greece would still most likely fall during 1941, chiefly as a result of Greek exhaustion, but it's guesswork when that happens exactly. Clearly not as soon as OTL, so Crete, I take it, definitely isn't happening. That means that the German airborne troops are available for Barbarossa, though how much they could achieve there is another big question.
I will ponder this a bit.

 

[X Oristos]

In the ATL I have Tripoli falling mid-Feb. I agree that given the easier shipping situation, getting four divisions including one armoured to Greece before the Germans complete the conquest of Yugoslavia (which incidentally I have assumed goes as OTL: a simplifying assumption) should be doable.

Well, let's see what forces are immediately available and what forces can be send in a second wave.

The British, with Cyrenaica captured as in OTL by them - I would guess somewhat earlier as the majority of the italian artillery transport and artillery was sent to Tripolitania, can send immediately the following:
-2nd New Zealand Division
- 6th Australian Division
- 7th Australian Division
- 2nd Armoured Division

First Wave: 3 Infantry and 1 Armoured Divisions

The 7th Armoured has faced much less resistance by the Italians and they didn't have to rush as in OTL. So, the wear and tear will be less compared to OTL and it can reconstitute a bit quicker- I would say May. Instead, the infantry can be sent in April if needed. The Cavalry Division can continuted its transition to armour dring the summer. In any case, the available field formations for the Second Wave are the following:

- 9th Australian Division
- 6th British Division (to be fair there is absolutely no reason that the 6th cannot be send in the first wave, but I am being conservative here)
- 7th Armoured Division

Second Wave: 2 Infantry and 1 Armoured Division

The Third Wave in June could be the 4th Indian Division that is returning to the Mediterranean Theatre.

By June the British can send in total 6 Infantry and 2 Armoured Divisions- without making any extra effort compared to OTL.

The French can send during the First Wave their corps in Syria. In OTL it was consisted by the 86e, 191e, 192e Divisions and one Polish Brigade with additional artillery (a groupement of 24 modern 105mm), AA and engineer units. These divisions were in OTL disbanded in the months after the Armistice. In May 1940 they were newly formed and green. In TTL they will have 10 more months to train. As the French have left few formations, I expect them to train them rigorously in the meantime. So the First Wave can be sent immediately without a single unit from North Africa.
source

In a Second Wave, they can send the colonial corps in Morocco that didn't take part in the Tripolitanian Campaign. I guess the 3rd Moroccan Division along with 2 others that existed already in Nogues' command in June 1940 would remain to Morocco to keep an eye to the Spanish, while the rest are fighting the Italians. These colonial divisions were newly formed and would have 10 months of additional training. Now it is their time to get some battle experience and the Moroccans will be excellent in the greek mountains. Their place in Morocco can be taken by a corps that fought the Italians and need rest in a backwater.

Overall, the French can send by June a total of 6 Infantry Divisions and 1 Brigade.

In total the Allies have the ability to send 12 Infantry and 2 Armoured Divisions by June.

OTL Piraeus was devastated in the Clan Fraser explosion. In my draft ATL (spoiler alert) I butterflied this; then question then becomes, how much of difference would that event make to the Allied ability to sustain their forces?

Very much so. It is one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean. Let's say comparable to Naples that in OTL supported the Italian Campaign. In addition to Piraeus you have also Volos that was a developed port with infrastructure (e.g. cranes) with a railway station right next to the port. A lot of smaller ports for coastal traffic exist as well.

"Following the successful Greek defence, the Greek Army as a whole possessed only a single month's supply of heavy artillery ammunition and insufficient supplies to equip its reserves; requests were immediately sent to their British allies for millions of artillery shells and tens of millions of rifle rounds. This proved to be a logistical impossibility for the British

If you have butterflied Clan Fraser then the ammunition situation will be better. The greek ammo industry (PYRKAL) was waiting the explosives from the ship for ammo production. The greek industry as it was, supported the greek army over a 5 month campaign. Now that allied material (both captured italian kit and explosives) is being available will improve dramatically the hardware situation of the greek army.

I made a rough scetch of the frontlines the Allies will take.

The last line is the most formitable one. The central mountainous "spine" (Pindus Mountains) is basically impenetrable - a 2500m massif with just a single road going from east to west (Metsovo Pass). South from Ioannina, where the lightest blue line ends, there is a single road passing through. If the Greeks are holding at the end the very light colored front, they simply have to cover two passes. They can have a great economy of force, they can rest a great portion of their army and send at least a corps to support the AngloFrench. The AngloFrench north of Larissa have to cover 3 roads to the north. Perhaps a fourth as well, but it would be a terrible non-macadamized road (good for mules bad for automobiles).

Frankly in your timeline, the Allies would enjoy incredible advantages in a Greek Campaign.

 

[FrangibleCover]

Something I always wonder about for a better performance in Greece, and honestly this could go either in here or in Carden Survives which is having basically the same conversation, is what's wrong with the most obvious defensive line in Greece: The Isthmus of Corinth. If you like five tarmac roads, you'll love zero (assuming appropriate provision of explosives). The Isthmus has three obvious lines of defence from Google Maps, anchored on Pateras, the Geraneia range and the canal respectively. Is the issue with this line that it abandons Athens and therefore abandons Greece, or is it simply that all the ports in the Peleponnese are crap? Certainly the only decent ones I can see are Nafplion and Kalamata, both of which are a bit pokey, but there's a God-gifted natural harbour at Navarino and a few other workable possibilities. Depends on how capable the Union is at chucking stuff up a beach onto a mule.

 

[Lascaris]

Something I always wonder about for a better performance in Greece, and honestly this could go either in here or in Carden Survives which is having basically the same conversation, is what's wrong with the most obvious defensive line in Greece: The Isthmus of Corinth. If you like five tarmac roads, you'll love zero (assuming appropriate provision of explosives). The Isthmus has three obvious lines of defence from Google Maps, anchored on Pateras, the Geraneia range and the canal respectively. Is the issue with this line that it abandons Athens and therefore abandons Greece, or is it simply that all the ports in the Peleponnese are crap? Certainly the only decent ones I can see are Nafplion and Kalamata, both of which are a bit pokey, but there's a God-gifted natural harbour at Navarino and a few other workable possibilities. Depends on how capable the Union is at chucking stuff up a beach onto a mule.

It's that Papagos squandered/could not afford to move, take your pick 90% of the Greek army in the Albanian front. Metaxas plan was supposedly to pull back to Olympus, Thermopylae, Peloponnese and finally Crete.

 

[spkaca]

By June the British can send in total 6 Infantry and 2 Armoured Divisions- without making any extra effort compared to OTL.

I suspect they might only need to send one armoured division, since such mountainous country isn't terribly suitable for massed armour. The other caveat about this is that half the infantry would be Australian, that might cause some political difficulties eventually. It won't be long before the Australian government starts calling for some of these troops back.

The French can send during the First Wave their corps in Syria. In OTL it was consisted by the 86e, 191e, 192e Divisions and one Polish Brigade

This is a great point and thanks for the link, I found it difficult finding detailed information about the number and quality of the French troops in Syria in 1940-1. My question here is whether Algiers would want to keep some of those troops in Syria for internal security. Still even one division (say the 86e) plus the Poles in April would have been very valuable, with another division (say 3rd Moroccan as you suggest) arriving in May. All told it looks like the Allies could get a two-corps force in April with strong reinforcements in May.

The greek ammo industry (PYRKAL) was waiting the explosives from the ship for ammo production. The greek industry as it was, supported the greek army over a 5 month campaign.

Their main factory appears to be in Athens. It's sure to be a priority target for the Luftwaffe. My main worry - as noted above - about the Allied position in this ATL Greece is the air question - the Allied air forces in mainland Greece will, at least initially, lack good early warning (no radar) and strong AA defences. Which gives me an idea...

Is the issue with this line that it abandons Athens and therefore abandons Greece, or is it simply that all the ports in the Peleponnese are crap?

I'd guess the latter, especially once under air attack, which the Allies couldn't prevent once the Axis have air bases in central Greece. The distances would be too short to allow reliable interception.

Papagos squandered/could not afford to move, take your pick 90% of the Greek army in the Albanian front

I'm still concerned about the capacity of the Greek army for prolonged resistance on their front. Can they retreat in good order to the Olympus line? What are the possibilities for transferring German forces to the Albanian front and attacking on the Ioannina - Arta axis? I think the Allies might have learned their lesson from 1940 i.e. make sure you have a mobile strategic reserve. 2nd Armoured plus a motorised infantry division would fill that role admirably.

The scenario I envisage for Greece therefore goes something like:
1. The Allies get enough troops into the line the prevent the Germans from breaking through the Olympus line in April. There is then a brief pause while the buildup goes on.
2. Major German effort in May, involving their airborne troops also. They are under instructions to break off the offensive if victory is not achieved by the end of May.
3. The Allies hold on. At the end of May the Luftwaffe, despite having gained local air superiority, mysteriously vanishes, as do the German Panzer forces.
4. June sees no more than local actions. Barbarossa happens on schedule.
5. July: the Allies mount a major offensive, as a political offering to encourage Stalin. It fails too - the Axis are also very well dug in. Both sides settle in for the long haul. Heavy Australian casualties and the growing Japanese threat prompts Canberra to insist on getting most of its troops back to the East.
6. The Allies begin a push in the Dodecanese, taking Karpathos and Rhodes by the end of the year.

How does this sound?

 

[merlin]

To back track - while watching the 'Tour de France' on TV over the last week, and seeing the terrain of southern France, wondered if there were any tales, memoirs etc of the evacuation., and the challenges of the terrain.
How did AFVs cope - were they transported train etc., or on their tracks - if the latter how many broke down en-route. As the evacuation gathered pace, I imagine French fighters based in the south would have done well - the Luftwaffe likely to have had problems with the range of the Me-109 until new airfields were set-up. To, the sea - were the convoys joined by unauthorised civilian ship/boats - even fishing boats wanting in future to ply their trade on the other side of the Med?

 

[X Oristos]

I suspect they might only need to send one armoured division, since such mountainous country isn't terribly suitable for massed armour. The other caveat about this is that half the infantry would be Australian, that might cause some political difficulties eventually. It won't be long before the Australian government starts calling for some of these troops back.

Due to the OTL, I doubt it would be a problem. In OTL, the 7th Australian Division was earmarked to arrive in the second wave along with the Polish Brigade. And it would be sent with the position in Cyrenaica collapsing while a hostile Vichy was on the eastern flank. Now that there is no North African campaign, I expect the 7th to arrive with the first wave.

Without having a North African Front, the Australian government won't object in sending the 9th Division in a second wave. They may object in sending the division to the frontline though. So, it can be form a mobile reserve in the Thessalian Plain behind the frontlines. After all, in OTL the Australians were fine having all of their divisions committed. In TTL the Australian committment will be lighter- in OTL you had the 6th in Greece and Crete, 7th in Syria-Lebanon and the 9th under siege in Tobruk. In TTL the frontline will be short enough to one Australian Division fully committed in one of the passes, one holding a quiet sector behind a mountain range with minimal fighting and one just camping in the rear.

My question here is whether Algiers would want to keep some of those troops in Syria for internal security.

I don't think they are needed. In OTL they were demobilized after the Armistice (and they the hostile British in Palestine in addition), so they were not needed for internal security. As I see it, the divisions had been formed to land in Thrace, as Weygand was suggesting. So, they would be used in their intended role.

If the 3 divisions were not needed in OTL with the British next door, while would they be needed now when there are allied British in the south and friendly Turks in the north? There is really no reason not to send them.

Their main factory appears to be in Athens. It's sure to be a priority target for the Luftwaffe. My main worry - as noted above - about the Allied position in this ATL Greece is the air question - the Allied air forces in mainland Greece will, at least initially, lack good early warning (no radar) and strong AA defences. Which gives me an idea...

When we talk about the aerial warfare in the Greek campaign, have in mind that the Germans will gain superiority (until June) but not air supremacy.

In April 1941 the Luftwaffe sent 1,000-1,200 aircraft against both Yugoslavia and Greece. They used airfields from both Austria and their satelites. I doubt they can send 1,000 planes against Greece in the short term. The bulgarian airfields had been expanding for more than a month to host the aircraft they did in OTL. When the German capture northern Greece they will obtain only a single airfield in Sedes, Thessaloniki. To throw the full 1,200 aircraft in a sustained effort against the Allies in Greece they will need more time expanding the existing airfields even more (in Bulgaria they were operating in full capacity to my knowledge) and build more airfields. This takes time and the window of opportunity last until the final week of May- as you mention at late May they vanish. So, how many aircraft can they throw against Greece in April-May? I don't know but certainly quite fewer than 1,200.

Now the British don't have an active campaign in Western Desert. Moreover, they don't have an actual threat against Alexandria and Suez since the Italians in the Dodecanese are cut off from supply for months. At the very least, the RAF can deploy 2 more fighter squadrons and 1 more Blenheim squadron in Greece with the First Wave. As they continue building up their bases in Attica and Crete, they can also move the 3 Wellignton squadrons in late April. By the end of May/ June they can add 1 RAAF fighter squadron flying P-40s, 1 Beaufighter squadron (to cover the supply route from Crete- they will have to deal with bombers not Me-109s) and 4 squadrons coming from the East African Front.

I guess the French would want to both deploy some squadrons of the AdA in Greece but also to conserve their limited pilot pool. Their main bottleneck is aircrew and not machines after all. How many aircrew would be sent? If I had to make a guess the French can deploy as many aircrew as they had in Syria-Lebanon in 1941. If the Vichy would sacrifice these aircrew in a backwater and not in North Africa, the French in TTL can do as well.

Lastly, the British in TTL have no reason to keep the greek order of 30 P-40s for themselves. So, the Greek Air Force will have 30 more modern fighters compared to OTL - when they were basically out of machines.

Overall, the Germans will have the upper hand but they will face much stiffer resistance compared to OTL. Any german aircrew shot down behind the frontlines will be POW. The Allied aircrews that are in a defending role, if they are shot down and survive, they will get wine and tsipouro from the locals and return to their airfields shaken but buzzed.

Can they retreat in good order to the Olympus line?

If they have even a single additional week without the Allied front collapsing, then absolutely.

What are the possibilities for transferring German forces to the Albanian front and attacking on the Ioannina - Arta axis?

Extremely few- their supply will have to come down the whole italian peninsula and then shipped to Valona. And the albanian ports operate in full capacity trying to supply the existing italian formations. If they actual try to do something like that (which I doubt) it would be such a clusterfuck with the logistics that it would be a major Allied boon.

The scenario I envisage for Greece therefore goes something like:
1. The Allies get enough troops into the line the prevent the Germans from breaking through the Olympus line in April. There is then a brief pause while the buildup goes on.
2. Major German effort in May, involving their airborne troops also. They are under instructions to break off the offensive if victory is not achieved by the end of May.
3. The Allies hold on. At the end of May the Luftwaffe, despite having gained local air superiority, mysteriously vanishes, as do the German Panzer forces.
4. June sees no more than local actions. Barbarossa happens on schedule.
5. July: the Allies mount a major offensive, as a political offering to encourage Stalin. It fails too - the Axis are also very well dug in. Both sides settle in for the long haul. Heavy Australian casualties and the growing Japanese threat prompts Canberra to insist on getting most of its troops back to the East.
6. The Allies begin a push in the Dodecanese, taking Karpathos and Rhodes by the end of the year.

How does this sound?

Well, good overall, but a few notes:
In OTL the Germans had decided to use a regiment of paratroopers to capture Lemnos island. At the beginning of April a british battalion had landed in Lemnos. Since it is in a strategic spot, I believe the British would have the opportunity to send more troops there instead of a single battalion. Perhaps the 22nd Brigade that is not needed in Western Desert. If the Germans use just the single regiment they wanted in OTL, then the British will have the upper hand. If they throw the full division, then the Germans have the upper hand. If the Germans try to drop paratroopers both in Lemnos and behind the Olympus Line.... well that would be the best for the Allies.

I don't think the Allies will have the ability to begin a major attack in July. A tactical attack in a limited front as a show of support - e.g. seize a few hills and better secure a pass, then yes. Their immediate target will be the Dodecanese Islands- the RN will demand it as they threaten the supply lines. Their first priority in OTL planning was to be defensive in the mainland and attack the islands. If I may make a suggestion, I find it more plausible as a show of support to engage in a limited attack in the mainland while they seize the Dodecanese in summer 1941.