Strictly speaking the evacuation was already underway, & was orderly as could be expected at that point. Its likely to break down as the Germans close in, but for 2-4 more weeks its going to remain organized. That may be long enough to remove the bulk of the essential personnel & key equipment.
Could France fight on from North Africa?
- Thread starter New Deal Democrat
- Start date
Strictly speaking the evacuation was already underway, & was orderly as could be expected at that point. Its likely to break down as the Germans close in, but for 2-4 more weeks its going to remain organized. That may be long enough to remove the bulk of the essential personnel & key equipment.
Archibald
Banned
Yes, most of the infrastructure North of Paris was taken undamaged by the Wermacht because French retreat was made in panic. That included fuel depots. Once south of Paris however, the German army will only find destruction and scorched Earth. Whatever can be moved away get moved, what can't be moved, gets destroyed.
The Luftwaffe actually atempts a Blitz Malta-Tunis early in the year 1941, with mixed results, but they don't care: the operation true objective is to harass and destroy Armée de l'air fighter squadrons that defends Corsica so that the German paratroopers can pull an OTL-Crete-like assault.
Basically, the Armée de l'Air just can't defends both Corsica and Tunis, there aren't enough D-520s and H-75 / P-40s (Bloch MB-152s and Moranes were left behind, with Potez 63s)
Once the Armée de l'air lured away (or overwhelmed by trying to fight on two fronts) Corsica is toast, albeit the battle last an entire month. Just like OTL Crete, it is a very narrow German victory obtained at a very high cost.
Climax of the battle for Corsica has Strasbourg and Dunkerque battlecruisers, plus a bunch of cruisers, covered by Bearn and a British carrier, shelling a German bridgehead near Ajaccio to help a French counterattack that very nearly suceed.
Alas, the carriers are soon overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe and the Bearn gets sunk, plus a French heavy cruiser and a couple of destroyers. Unmolested, the Stukas crush the French counterattack and save the bridgehead. Corsica fells early in the month of march 1941.
Meanwhile the Richelieu and Algerie heavy cruiser are send to Scappa Flow to assist the RN against Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sorties in the Atlantic via the North Sea.
Overall, the French fleet has a far better fate than OTL. There are dreadful losses (a lot of heavy cruisers goes down in a blaze of glory - Foch, Dupleix, and others - but Mers El Kebir and Toulon scuttling never happens.
The Luftwaffe actually atempts a Blitz Malta-Tunis early in the year 1941, with mixed results, but they don't care: the operation true objective is to harass and destroy Armée de l'air fighter squadrons that defends Corsica so that the German paratroopers can pull an OTL-Crete-like assault.
Basically, the Armée de l'Air just can't defends both Corsica and Tunis, there aren't enough D-520s and H-75 / P-40s (Bloch MB-152s and Moranes were left behind, with Potez 63s)
Once the Armée de l'air lured away (or overwhelmed by trying to fight on two fronts) Corsica is toast, albeit the battle last an entire month. Just like OTL Crete, it is a very narrow German victory obtained at a very high cost.
Climax of the battle for Corsica has Strasbourg and Dunkerque battlecruisers, plus a bunch of cruisers, covered by Bearn and a British carrier, shelling a German bridgehead near Ajaccio to help a French counterattack that very nearly suceed.
Alas, the carriers are soon overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe and the Bearn gets sunk, plus a French heavy cruiser and a couple of destroyers. Unmolested, the Stukas crush the French counterattack and save the bridgehead. Corsica fells early in the month of march 1941.
Meanwhile the Richelieu and Algerie heavy cruiser are send to Scappa Flow to assist the RN against Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sorties in the Atlantic via the North Sea.
Overall, the French fleet has a far better fate than OTL. There are dreadful losses (a lot of heavy cruisers goes down in a blaze of glory - Foch, Dupleix, and others - but Mers El Kebir and Toulon scuttling never happens.
Last edited:
MrP
Banned
The chaps at FFO did the math and I for one find their calculations convincing. As Archibald has pointed out, they didn't even go for a best-case scenario.
Archibald
Banned
Fantasque Time Line got called this way because the said Fantasque is not only the name of an ultrafast WWII French destroyer, it is also the pen name of this man, who isn't exactly a nobody
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Sapir
He got the original idea in 2004 discussing naval matters with Mark Bailey on the Naval Fiction Board. There are highly qualified people running the FTL, economists and others. So yes, they did the math.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Le_Fantasque
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Fantasque-class_destroyer
I have often thought that had France fought on from North Africa the Fantasque class destroyers would have been based in Tunisia and used to make supply runs to Malta. They might acquire the nickname "Paris Express."Fantasque Time Line got called this way because the said Fantasque is not only the name of an ultrafast WWII French destroyer, it is also the pen name of this man, who isn't exactly a nobody
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Sapir
He got the original idea in 2004 discussing naval matters with Mark Bailey on the Naval Fiction Board. There are highly qualified people running the FTL, economists and others. So yes, they did the math.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Le_Fantasque
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Fantasque-class_destroyer
If actually based on Malta they would have made life very difficult for the Axis convoys to Libya or forced the Regia Navale to give them much stronger escorts, which in turn means fewer heavy units would be available to intercept the evacuation convoys from France.
On the subject of Malta how soon would the French be able to move some fighter and anti-shipping squadrons from North Africa to Malta?
Archibald
Banned
More details. The French government in Algiers knows they just can't fight Japan in FIC, they could at best delay the invasion a little. So after the Franco-Thail crisis of April 1941 (that was fueled by Japan) a kind of agreement is found between France and Japan by May 1941. France is no dupe, they know that Japan will wipe their asses with the agreement sooner rather than later, but they have no other option.
Meanwhile Japan expansionism manages to piss-off the United States (albeit in a slightly different way than OTL), with the oil embargo late July.
We considered France staying in the war couldn't change Japan and United States collision course that was bound to end in a war sooner rather than later. That reached as far back as 1905 and Tsushima, plus the war in China (1931) and many other reasons largely indepandant from France.
By the way, I have a question.
In 1905 at Tsushima Japan managed to crush Russia out of a war through a naval victory, notably crushing their morale.
Obviously Japan hoped to achieve a similar result with the United States: crush their battleship fleet in a large battle, and poof, gone is the will to fight, America retreats, the Pacific and Southern Asia are ours.
What I often wonder is OTL French collapse convinced the Japanese that the United States could collapse the same way.
France falling was as much military as a morale collapse, the country no longer wanted to fight. Maybe the Japanese thought US democracy was weak in the same way ?
Last edited:
Eh, it didn't matter Japan would have to do something or whither on the vine due to lack of US resources.
Yup. Every month they delay the US Pacific possessions are fortified and the new-built US ships inch towards completion. Delaying the strike puts Japanese forces in further peril, so they can't afford to wait any longer.
Short and long answers are yes. Japanese leaders with no experience with the US convinced themselves the degenerate democracy would abandon the embargoes and negotiate a peace favorable to japan after a few sharp defeats. They assumed the same for Britain, with even less evidence. Some leaders, mostly those who had spent time in the US understood otherwise. Admiral Yamamoto is the usual example, but there were others.
I recommend a few books like Costellos 'The Pacific War' for chapters on the decision for war.
The Japanese decision to enter French Indo China was deeply influenced by the fact they would not have to fight. The Franco German Armistice required that France defend its colonies from all invaders. the Germans were looking at their enemies in this clause. But, Hitler saw advantages in aiding Japan, so Petains government was ordered to allow the Japanese in.
The Japanese were far less prepared for war in the autumn of 1940 & with Britain as a active ally of France its unlikely the Japanese government will attempt a actual invasion of FIC that year. If the French are defeated in North Africa then the Japanese may be more confident in 1941, but otherwise they are facing a much stronger set of opponents in Asian/Pacific in 1941 if the Axis are losing in the Mediterranean.
Archibald
Banned
It is an in-between. Nobody is winning or losing in the Mediterranean: it's a butchery swallowing men, aircrafts, and ships. As for the Pacific, France resources are extremely limited (even with cash and carry + lend lease) and they can't send much to Indochina.
Another interesting tweak is the fate of two beautiful ships that were lost OTL the same week of February 1942.
They are the MN Surcouf large submarine cruiser, and the Normandie liner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Normandie#Lafayette_conversion
Normandie is used as an aircraft transport (crated). Its top speed above 21 kt makes it immune to U-boats. It joins the pack of large, fast liners used by the RN (Mauretania, The Queens, and a host of others)
Last edited: