Magnum said:
I was thinking OTL troopps for Torch minus the Americans with a bit more Canadians, and without the landings in Morroco. Maybe also with the Oran landing switched to Tunisia
Why is this so unbelievable ?
Because I don't see any conceivable need for it. Why does CIGS do this, rather than simply attach them to Eighth Army?
Magnum said:
There is also the possibility that Australia, thanks to American stuff, raises extra divisions to defend itself. And/Or maybe Indian units are sent there as well.
Well, no, since even with actual American troops to help defend Oz, there were calls for Oz infantry to be held or called back.
Magnum said:
My thinking was that, if part of the ATL-Torch forces landed in Tunisia, there would be no "Tunisgrad" where hundreds of thousands of Germans and Italians are trapped. This means that the Axis has way more stuff to defend Sicilly with.
Since, AFAIK, the troops in Tunis did not come from Sicily, I'm not seeing the connection. Nor would the Brits allow the Axis in Tunis to escape. As a matter of fact, the Brits went out of their way to prevent it--& it didn't happen, to the disappointment of not a few MTB sailors.
Magnum said:
Since the British feel the need to do something, a landing in Sardinia fits perfectly with the age-old British strategy of peripheral strikes.
No argument.
Magnum said:
With no Americans to fight, Japan would have a lot more forces available as well
Well, no. They were busy fighting Chinese, in the main. Or defending (in Japan's mind, at least) against potential Sov invasion.
Magnum said:
while there would probably be way more Indian units fighting for the British, I don't think their numbers would be so great as to equal the OTL American contribution
It appears the U.S. contribution isn't as large as most believe. I'll also wager India could, at need, provide easily ten times the manpower of the U.S.
Magnum said:
with no Americans, the prospect of switching sides and evicting the Germans (who might have more units inside Italy than OTL) would be a lot less appealing to the Italians.
What is the magic of American involvement, here?

More to the point, if there are more Germans in Italy, that's good for the Allies, & an even better reason not to invade the damn country.
Magnum said:
With a greater concentration of Axis forces on the mainland and less men at his disposal
And where is this "greater concentration" coming from, exactly?
Magnum said:
I din't think these were important enough to mention. Plus, it's a shorter distance from Britain to the Ruhr or Berlin than from Sicilly, meaning any bombers based there would more likely strike targets in southern Europe.
Fair points.
Magnum said:
Maybe he doesn't get to decide.
Decide? No. You're talking like he gets no say at all.
Magnum said:
They reached Normandy undetected OTL.
Crossing the Channel is an extremely different proposition from sailing all the way around to the damn Bay of Biscay.
Magnum said:
By now, the entire Nazi war machine is a wreck.
So much for the "increased concentrations", then.
Magnum said:
maybe the Mullbery harbours get butterflied
Reasonable, but not without reason. I don't see one.
Magnum said:
the British don't have the sealift capability to support a large army on the beaches.
But they do have enough to transport the force to Brest?


Also, what makes you think the Germans didn't have it wired for demolition, just like Cherbourg? Just like every one of the Channel ports, in fact?
Magnum said:
If I said they initially land at Cherbourg, would it make any difference to the story ?
Not really. It would be just slightly less impossible.