Operation Torch takes Algeria but not Morocco. Vichy France declares war. What happens next?

[SwampTiger]

ArtosStark has provided the core of the argument against any long lived defense in North Africa. The Vichy government can make the defense harder and more effective only with German approval. The lack of transport and sufficient supplies crippled the defense. Lack of additional airfields inland allowed Allied forces to cripple the air defenses early. The decline of the MN limited their ability to react.

You might consider having the Tunisian option accepted rather than the Moroccan option by Allied leaders.

 

[Edward9]

Now that I have my computer back, I can reply properly. Didn't think this would be a good one for the Phone.

For starters, good research. You have done your homework.


Fair enough. However, do we know what his perception was? You have mentioned this before, are you working from a journal or autobiography of his? And if so, could you post a link or the name? Both for helping with the discussion and for my own intellectual greed? .

Since I do not have that, I will have to be somewhat speculative. However, I believe that you are overestimating the threat that the Vichy Fleet poses and underestimating the political importance of Torch. The order to prepare for and launch Torch was made by FDR. One of only two times that he would directly order a military commander during the course of WW2. This was the first commitment of American ground troops to combat in the European theater, and if it was a failure the pressure to abandon the Europe First policy would have increased. So there was a lot riding on making Torch successful, and I doubt Eisenhower would have come out well if he turned tail at the first sign of trouble. Granted. it would be much worse if the fleet was lost. So the question then is, how worried would he be about the fleet?

Head of Naval operation for Torch was Admiral Cunningham, a man extremely experienced in the Mediterranean, and with both the RM (he was the man behind Taranto and Cape Matapan) and the MN (He fought alongside them until the Fall of France). Cunningham has Force H specifically as a covering force for the landings (ie. defense against just such a naval attack). Force H has 2 BB's (Duke of York and Rodney), a BC (Renown), 3 Carriers (Formidable, Victorious, and Furious), 3 crusiers (1 CA and 2 CL's) and 17 DD's. Algiers had fallen on the 8th, so the Eastern Naval Task Force is also available. It had 2 CVE's (Mostly carrying fighters), 3 Cruisers (1 CA and 2 CL's) and 17 DD's. Oran surrendered on the 9th so the Central Naval Task Group will also soon be available. It contained 2 CVE's, 3 cruisers (1 CA, 1CL and 1 CAA) and 13 DD's. Ignoring the CVE's and other support ships, this gives Cunningham 2 BB's, 1 BC, 3 Carriers, 9 Cruisers and 43 DD's. If they are really desperate the Western Naval Task force can also be called up. It consisted of 1 BB (Massachusetts), 2 Cruisers (Both CA's) and 4 DD's. This would bring the total up to 3 BB's, 1 BC, 3 Carriers, 11 Cruisers and 47 DD's. (All numbers are from this little gem of a website: niehorster.org/index.htm )

By contrast the French Fleet at Toulon consist of the High Seas Force and the Ships under Maritime Region III. MR III consists of Coastal defense ships, training ships and those laid up in reserve. In active service are 1 BC (Provence, a school ship), and 6 Light Destroyers (DE's). In reserve is 1 BC (Dunkerque, in drydock), 2 cruisers (1 in drydock), 6 DE's, and 6 DD's. The High Seas Force, which is the only force likely to sail in this scenario, consists of 1 BC (Strasbourg), 6 Cruisers (4 CA's and 2 CL's but one of the CL's is in drydock) 10 DD's and 3 DE's. They might be able to reactivate the reserve ships but not in time for a speedy departure. I expect the same would apply to Provence being reactivated from a school ship. But assuming Provence is with the fleet and they strip their coastal defense DE's then they will have a fleet consisting of 2 BC's, 5 Cruisers, 10 DD's and 9 DE's. To be honest I think Force H could handle that alone. And if allied spies are able to report the fleet getting ready to sail there is a good chance that they are aware of a good portion of this. The ships in dry dock are obvious. The ships in reserve probably are as well. They almost certainly would be trying to report what ships leave the harbor. On the whole I don't think that the Vichy Fleet is an existential threat to the landings.

It should also be noted that even if the French fleet sailed immediately on the 9th they would not reach Algiers (the closest landing force) for over a day at 15 knots cruising speed.


Well, they do have 18 at Toulon but 15 of those are in reserve, and will take more than a day to sail and at 7 knots cruising speed it will take 4 days for them to reach Gibraltar. Granted, the allies may not know that these are in reserve, and they may be more worried about them than I have made it seem, but Italian and German submarines have already been operating in the strait for much of the war, and they have not managed to shut it down.


At sea resupply was actually a thing in 1942, just astern not abeam resupply. The Support fleet for Torch had 18 oilers in it. These could refuel the ships at sea. I don't know for sure about ammunition but the fleet also had 23 cargo ships.


Well, they kind of did. Taranto and Cape Matapan were both pretty catastrophic for the RM. It was mostly established by 1942 that if the Italian fleet sailed where the Med Fleet could reach them they would be in danger of destruction. The battle fleet was then moved further up the peninsula, and only used when necessary. They needed basically the whole fleet to escort convoys to Tripoli to try and reduce shipping losses and even that was done halfheartedly. Attacking the RM in their new positions was certainly risky for the RN as there would be significant dangers from aircraft, mines and torpedo boats. It was also unnecessary at that time. If the RM is sailing into open waters away from air cover they are going to be in serious trouble.


Based on the numbers I posted above, the fleet can stay in place, even be reinforced and the CVE's from Centre and East Naval Task force and a small covering force can head for Morocco. But it will take them over a day to get there and by that time Casablanca will have fallen.


In regards to the Vichy position, there were 3 divisions in Algeria. The Algiers Division (5 Regiments), the Oran Division (4 Regiments) and the ironically named Moroccan Division (4 Regiments). I don't have full picture of where they all are during the battle, but a large portion of at least the first 2 would have been engaged and either pushed back or captured by the 9th. Possibly the third as well. It is also worth noting that without Darlan in Africa, General Juin was commander of all of North Africa, and he was captured along with Darlan in OTL. It is certainly possible, though not assured, that without Darlan a similar deal would be worked out with Juin. In OTL after Darlan ordered French Forces to cooperate with the Allies Juin personally convinced General Nogues (Commander in Morroco) to work with the Allies. It is also possible, though again not assured, that without Darlan in Africa, the coup on the night of the 8th succeeds in convincing Juin not to resist the Allies, speeding the whole process up.

However, back to Vichy deployments, there were also 4 divisions in Morroco. The Casablanca division was engaged with Patton's forces. The others were, as far as I know, unengaged at this point but there was a noted lack of equipment and especially transport, so I doubt they are overly mobile. Crucially, all three are inland (Fez, Mekes, and Marrakesh). With Casablanca, Algiers and and Oran in allied hands they have no way to receive supplies. They will likely wither on the vine even if they do not surrender.


Its worth noting that Vichy forces did have aircraft at the time of Torch but they were unable to sway the issue. In Morocco,both of their fighter squadrons (One of Dewotine 520's and one of Hawk 75's) and one bomber squadron (DB-7's) have lost their airfields by the 9th. Vichy does have 3 squadrons of medium bombers left (1 DB-7's and 2 LeO 451's) and I don't know if the other aircraft were withdrawn before their airfield was taken or not. Supply of fuel is going to become the problem soon though. Algeria has had the same happen to all three squadrons of fighters (DW 520's) and 2 out of three bomber squadrons with the last only 45 km away from Algiers. Tunisia has 36 fighters (
DW520's and 8 Po 631's) and 26 bombers (LeO 451's) total. As far as I can tell Metropolitan France has 5 squadrons of day fighers (4 MB-152's and 1 DW 520's) and 4 squadrons of bombers (Leo 451's). Sending 100 aircraft might tip the balance, but they would need to be able to transport themselves and their ground crew to Tunisia, then to an increasingly small number of airfields in Algeria and Morocco while keeping supplied with fuel, replacement parts, crew and airframes. And it is no guarantee it will make the difference. Even ignoring the fleet carriers the Allies had 4 CVE's flying 39 Sea Hurricanes and 12 Seafires. And they controlled the airfields around all three objectives. Meaning if it turns into a protracted campaign they can bring in land based aircraft of their own.

All this to say, the OP could turn into a nastier fight for the Allies if it went ahead. But I think the French in North Africa are doomed. and I don't think there is a lot of need to abandon the fight in Morocco to secure Algeria. The threat of Vichy France is limited and by the time response can arrive, the initial objectives are mostly taken. Vichy forces in both areas are mostly living on borrowed time with the ports in Allied hands. What might be more complicated is if the Germans in Tunis are able to move farther and quicker with the French holding the port. I don't think it will make a ton of difference in the long run, but it would make the next few weeks more interesting.

However, if we ignore this massive text wall I have just vomited out, and assume that Morroco is Vichy but Algeria is Allied, then the armies in Morroco are still likely doomed due to lack of supply. There might be clashes in Western Algeria though. The big difference will be in Tunisia. French forces there did not hold the Germans for very long but they did delay them. With needing to secure Algeria, limited fighting with forces from Morocco, and a German advance from Tunisia, the allied position is more complicated. I still think it is likely that things in NA go the allied way but it might take longer. It also means that West Africa is still Vichy and the Free French lose out on a lot of experienced soldiers.

I have to thank you for making me dig so deep into this portion of WW2. Its not one I have had a lot of experience in to this point.

Unfortunately I do not my library any more. I am working from memory about Eisenhower. Sorry.

I may be over estimating the threat the Vichy fleet posed. However all the ships at Morocco fought to the death and the fleet from Toulon would be attacking a divided American fleet with a large number of non combatant ships.

For the political importance I had Eisenhower join the British in Morocco not flee Africa. The title says Algeria taken but not Morocco. The two fleets were divided into smaller fleets. This would allow the Allied fleets to be defeated in detail a needless risk as I see things. Landing the troops in Algeria does not necessarily mean an end to the assault on Morocco just the amphibious portion. Unloading at port facilities would facilitate the attack.

About the fleet I agree the question is how worried were the Allies. I agree with your numbers. The Italian numbers are from memory but if you wish to discuss it further I will did through my notes and find exact numbers. 3 modern battleships 2 updated battleships one of which cannot sail and two obsolete battleships which are still cruiser killers. Italians had lost a lot of cruisers at this point maybe 4-6 available same with destroyers maybe 20 available. That is six battleships against 2 battleships and 1 battle cruiser. that is enough to worry about even with an advantage in cruisers and destroyers. Some of those destroyers will have to be left to guard all the non combatant ships from submarines whether or not any are in the area. the British battleships and cruisers at Oran had subdued the city by bombardment. No idea how much ammunition they had left but they used some and possibly a lot. I think the Italian fleet potentially has a major edge if they fight only the British. I believe the Italian battleships in a daylight engagement were much better than the British ones. The modern guns were bigger, heavier, higher velocity, flatter shooting and more accurate. I believe Italian battleships were about 5000 tons heavier with resulting better armor (if you wish to discuss a naval engagement I can provide exact details). British King George V class ships were mechanically unreliable at this point in the war so their rate of fire would be expected to be much lower than the listed rate. Italian torpedoes were perhaps the best in the world after the Japanese ones. British torpedoes were not as bad as American but the detonators had problems. I think Cunningham was the best admiral the British had which is a major factor in their favor. The British carriers had at most 108 or 126 planes available. These planes were largely obsolete the crews of 1941 Taranto had been replaced by new pilots with little experience and British torpedoes were not completely reliable. Even without land based air cover I am not sure they were a major threat. I cannot think of any examples of them performing like American carriers against a moving fleet but this may be ignorance on my part. While I concede they might have disabled the attacking fleet I am more interested on what would happen if they performed very poorly and a surface engagement were fought. I do not think it would be as one sided as the numbers appear although I do not say the Italians would surely win.

As for the American fleet, they had been engaged in both shore bombardment and a long naval battle. I do not believe they have the ammunition for a large scale naval engagement. The same is true for the American carriers. The planes would be low on fuel and ammunition. Pulling any fighting ships would leave the landing and cargo ships less defended. I am aware of at sea refueling though perhaps the weather would have prevented it. However this is irrelevant as I assume both sides had enough fuel for about a week for purposes of discussion.

I agree the fleet would not be able to fight until the 10/11th. If the British are engaged with the Italians surely you would agree a fleet of say 1 battleship about 6 heavy and light cruisers and a dozen extra large destroyers is a threat to 1 battleship 2 cruiser and 4 destroyers all low on ammunition? The French had radar. A night engagement was possible and would eliminate American air cover or closing at night for a dawn attack is a possibility. this force would surely be a threat to the cargo ships. As of the 9th the Americans were doing quite poorly and had no way of knowing the weather would improve enough to allow supplies to be landed. Pulling ships from the British would have greatly worsened the odds for them if the Italians fought.

I disagree with your submarine assessment. The Redoutable class was capable of 17-20 knots surfaced and 10 knots submerged. They could run the surface at night so could be in the area sooner than 4 days. While the Germans and Italians were never able to close the straits there are two differences here. The British never tried to push about 200 cargo ships through the strait at one. Also Vichy never allowed them to base submarines out of southern France or Morocco. How effective French submarines would have been is a fair question but the Allies had to assume fairly effective. Long term basing Italian and German submarines there could potentially shut down both the straits and Gibraltar. Letting a handful of French submarines shoot the cargo ships in the Atlantic would probably see high losses. Letting the French fleet do the same thing in the Atlantic would be even worse. Continuing the invasion as it went historically requires keeping the fleets divided enough for the French fleet to be a threat. Casablanca falling will not help the invasion fleet if the Vichy fleet is within range.

The Italian fleet was in poor shape in 1942 but I do not believe it was as week as described. The British were not able to supply Malta well enough to prevent famine. The carriers did fly and flee missions meaning they snuck in and launched planes for Malta from as far away as possible and fled as quickly as possible. Taranto was a brilliant attack but it was a surprise attack on ships in harbor. Cape Matapan was due to Italian incompetence sending cruisers against battleships due to ignoring reports of battleships in the area. You have left out all the Italian naval victories which while not as impressive do indicate an effective fighting force. All throughout 1941-1942 the British navy acted afraid of the Italian Navy and Cunningham was not a timid commander and neither was Somerville. The Italians were prepared to launch Operation Hercules which was a major amphibious operation with many vulnerable ships in 1942 so they were planning to move against the British fleet in a major operation.

Concerning the divisions I to initially found 12.5. However I looked up the French order of battle and have posted the names of 17 divisions in North Africa. I also could post about eight more colonial divisions that disbanded in France after the fall of France since at that same time about 8 divisions of so called police and border guards show up in north Africa. However I cannot prove those divisions were the source of the "border guards and police," but there were a lot of soldiers under other names in north Africa. This is against 5 Allied divisions and it would be several months before more show up. This is ignoring the Axis divisions that were used to capture Tunisia and at Kasserine Pass. It is true the Axis did not initially engage the invasion force heavily but after 4 days the fighting was over. Continued resistance certainly has the potential to change the Italian and Axis response. Even with Vichy cooperation it was two months before the Allies were able to launch anything resembling an offensive operation.

Airpower. That is the question isn't it? I agree with your estimate for north Africa. It seems better than anything could turn up. I would like to focus on Allied airpower first. There were 400 land based planes allocated for operation Torch all crammed on the runways of Gibraltar. If Vichy launched an attack on Gibraltar like they did the last time the British attacked them all it would take is one bomb to wipe out all the planes for operation Torch much like the bomb that hit the Akagi did. This is because Gibraltar was stuffed full of planes fuel bombs and munitions all packed in close quarters. The planes were so tightly packed a single hit would have set off a chain reaction. I'm not saying it would happen but things like that do happen. The Germans captured 246 D520s from Vichy when they invaded and the Italians several dozen at least although I am unsure if these were first captured by the Germans and then given to the Italians but a minimum of 246 in France with 62 under construction. There were 30 in Senegal. There were 173 in north Africa of which 143 were operational. Of these 32 were lost in combat and many more were destroyed on the ground. The point is few aircraft were lost to fighters and against the British in the Levant campaign the British typically lost two to one or more to the D.520. This being the case somewhere around 300 D520s with low losses due to actual air to air combat is a potential threat. Fuel will be a problem for both sides (Allies had trouble unloading) but for discussion I would stipulate at least a week of fuel except for the carrier planes. There was enough for 289 planes to fly 266 missions in the Levant and it was less important than North Africa and much harder to supply. So 400 Allied land based planes 108-126 maximum for the British carriers and about 60 for the Ranger plus 30 each for 5 light carriers (not sure I this includes the Hurricanes and Sea Fires you mentioned). A two to one advantage for the Allies before combat and operational losses. This includes only Vichy fighters versus all types for the Allies. The Allies cannot concentrate their airpower unless they join their fleets and leave one country undefended and this would allow them to be defeated in detail. This is ignoring Italian and German aircraft which could be quite substantial. I see the potential for it to go quite badly for the Allies. If the Axis send a major airstrike against the British carriers I do not see the British carriers being capable of stopping them.

Some concluding thoughts. The only really successful British naval aviation strikes I am aware of were two Pearl Harbor type raids. The Bismark battle was a study in aerial incompetence as was the Indian Ocean raid. The great British victory at Cape Matapan was a lucky victory based on Italian incompetence. Norway was a study in naval incompetence as was the Indian Ocean raid. Imagine if Germany had not invaded Norway and I posted the results of the actual battle as an alternate scenario. Oh, the responses I would get. The British had carriers and the Germans did not. The British fleet in familiar waters out numbered the Germans massively in every single category. The British naval tradition and so on.

Two things are surprising and dismaying to me. If the operation is carried on as it was historically the French fleet has a chance to destroy the American forces and the cargo ships massively hindering future ground operations. The same is true for the French force and the British navy at Oran. The Italian navy can definitely destroy the British navy at Algeris if half the navy is at Oran. If the British navy unites the French can destroy all the cargo ships at Oran and then destroy the American ships in the Mediterranean. I see 25 divisions against 5. The American divisions are under the worst American general and completely inexperienced with horrible performance in this theatre in actual history. Yet no one thinks it is in any way realistic much less necessary to consolidate forces to prevent the Vichy and Italian navies from defeating the Allied forces in detail. It took two months with Vichy cooperation for the Americans and British to unload enough supplies to launch an offensive but no one thinks a total of 25 divisions against 5 might make a difference even when the allied divisions are scattered across two large countries with no more than one division and often less at any location. Thee other dismaying and surprising thing is on a site supposedly dedicated to alternate history no one (with two exceptions) is even willing to discuss the alternate scenario and instead spend their time trying to prove no matter what changes are introduced it would go exactly as in actual history without the slightest variation.

 

[Edward9]

Moroccan Goumier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

North Africa 1940–42[edit]
In May 1940, 12 Moroccan Goums were organized as the 1st Group of Moroccan Auxiliaries (French: 1er Groupe de Supplétifs Marocains – G.S.M.) and used in combat against Italian troops operating out of Libya. After the armistice of 1940, the Goums were returned to Morocco. To evade strict German limits on how many troops France could maintain in North Africa, the Goumiers were described as having Gendarmerie-type functions, such as maintenance of public order and the surveillance of frontiers, while maintaining military armament, organization, and discipline.[9]

I doubt the French would move troops from Syria to North Africa after the armistice. The British will definitely take some action if French troops are sent. Especially if the French declare for the Axis. If the French send additional troops, I would expect a split between the three colonies. Tunisia was very weakly held.

They did move troops after they lost the Levant in 1941. You are doubting actual history. I listed the divisions in north Africa you can see exactly how many were in Tunisia less the three transferred from Syria.

 

[Dupplin Muir]

I believe the Italian battleships in a daylight engagement were much better than the British ones. The modern guns were bigger, heavier, higher velocity, flatter shooting and more accurate.

Unfortunately the Italian guns were also slow-firing and had serious dispersion problems which made them inferior in practical terms to the British 15" and 16" guns.

Italian torpedoes were perhaps the best in the world after the Japanese ones. British torpedoes were not as bad as American but the detonators had problems.

Italian air-dropped torpedoes were better than the German, but were inferior to the British. The only detonators that had problems were the Duplex type, and only initially. The British could easily replace such detonators with standard contact types if necessary - as they did for the attack on Bismarck.

You have left out all the Italian naval victories which while not as impressive do indicate an effective fighting force. All throughout 1941-1942 the British navy acted afraid of the Italian Navy

Citation needed - and I don't consider O'Hara a reliable source.

You also forget that the British were very well-trained in night-action - at least as good as the Japanese, while the French and Italian navies were poorly-trained and equipped for such encounters.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The Italian lack of fuel would mean any sortie would not be in force.

 

[Zheng He]

All throughout 1941-1942 the British navy acted afraid of the Italian Navy

They did?

 

[Cymry-Korean]

All throughout 1941-1942 the British navy acted afraid of the Italian Navy

They did?

Cunningham wasn't usually one to seem afraid of anything.

 

[SwampTiger]

They did move troops after they lost the Levant in 1941. You are doubting actual history. I listed the divisions in north Africa you can see exactly how many were in Tunisia less the three transferred from Syria.

Yes, I overstated.

However, having several separate battalion sized light infantry units is not going to stop the Allied forces. The French could not organize, supply and coordinate a force capable of driving the American Army into the sea.

 

[jlckansas]

All throughout 1941-1942 the British navy acted afraid of the Italian Navy

They did?

The only part of the Italian Navy they worried about in that period of time were the X MAS ( Decimas MAS) units, notice I used worried not feared.

 

[ArtosStark]

Well, I have the opportunity to dive yet deeper into this subject I suppose.

Allied Fleets:

the fleet from Toulon would be attacking a divided American fleet with a large number of non combatant ships.

If the Allies are aware of the French Fleet sailing, I don't think the invasion fleet is what is going to meet them. As I said, Force H was the covering force, and was largely not engaged at this time. The French Fleet would, I think, be dealing with a large British battlefleet. The allies had separate fleet units covering each main landing area, I gave the compositions in my earlier wall-of text post but the Eastern and Central Task Groups both had 2 CVE's, a couple cruisers and 13 destroyers. I have since realized that this was just the covering force. Each landing group was additionally escorted by several destroyers and smaller ships as well as a cruiser or two in some cases. There is some overlap in the ship names listed so perhaps part of the covering force was used for these forces. Or at least, this is the case for the RN covered Central and Eastern Task Groups. The USN Western Task Group seems to have been arranged differently. In this case, looking at the escorting forces turned up, in addition to a number of DD and smaller ships, two more BB's (USS Texas and USS New York), 3 CL's, a CA, 4 more CVE's and USS Ranger.

For the political importance I had Eisenhower join the British in Morocco not flee Africa. The title says Algeria taken but not Morocco. The two fleets were divided into smaller fleets. This would allow the Allied fleets to be defeated in detail a needless risk as I see things. Landing the troops in Algeria does not necessarily mean an end to the assault on Morocco just the amphibious portion. Unloading at port facilities would facilitate the attack.

As mentioned above, there were actually 4 "fleets" involved. The aforementioned Force H, as a covering force, and the three task forces each supporting a landing. Two of those have achieved their immediate objectives by the end of the 9th and are available if Force H is in need of quick reinforcements. By the end of the 9th the coast of Algeria is secure, as is the entirety of its offensive airpower (I checked, the airfields I wasn't sure of were in fact taken by the end of the ninth, which means there is no more Vichy offensive aircraft in Algeria). RAF Fighters had flown onto both Maison Blanche airfield near Algiers ( 2 squadrons of Spitfires and one of Hurricaines out of Gibraltar) and Tafaraoui airfield near Oran ( at least 28 Spitfires). In OTL the British alone would move 15 Squadrons of fighters, 12 squadrons of fighter-bombers, 3 squadrons of night fighters (Beaufighters) and a squadron of reconnaissance aircraft to Algeria by the end of the month. The US would move 18 squadrons of fighters (6 by Nov 8th according to my source), 16 squadrons of bombers, 9 squadrons of reconnaissance, and 12 squadrons of transport planes. It is possible some of this could have been sped up in an emergency. No guarantee, but its possible. So by the time the French Fleet could have sailed, the allies have control of the Algerian ports, over 30,000 men ashore in Algeria alone, aerial superiority over the Algerian Coastline, and a battlefleet of superior numbers to the Vichy Fleet between them and Gibraltar, and therefore, Morocco. Based on this, IMHO, the forces in Morocco, who I believe are also already on shore, can keep fighting to take Casablanca and the surrounding areas, while the forces in the Med deal with the French.

I agree the fleet would not be able to fight until the 10/11th. If the British are engaged with the Italians surely you would agree a fleet of say 1 battleship about 6 heavy and light cruisers and a dozen extra large destroyers is a threat to 1 battleship 2 cruiser and 4 destroyers all low on ammunition? The French had radar. A night engagement was possible and would eliminate American air cover or closing at night for a dawn attack is a possibility. this force would surely be a threat to the cargo ships. As of the 9th the Americans were doing quite poorly and had no way of knowing the weather would improve enough to allow supplies to be landed. Pulling ships from the British would have greatly worsened the odds for them if the Italians fought.

It would certainly be, but I am not sure which fleets we are discussing in this scenario. The most likely fleet for the French to fight is Force H. This had :
2 BB's and a BC to 1 French BC (two if we are being generous)
3 CV's to 0 French
1 CA to the French 4
2 CL's to the French 1
17 DD's to the French 13.

In addition to the above, the RN had two forces covering invasions that had already met their initial objectives, that could probably be called on if necessary. This included:
4 CVE's,
2 CA's
3 CL's
26 DD's

Of all of these, the only ones that I can find reference to participating in Bombardment are HMS Rodney (detached from Force H to the landing at Oran), and the Cruisers Aurora and Jamaica (Both part of the Oran covering force). I don't know how many rounds Rodney fired but according to NAVWeapons it should be carrying about 630 total. I doubt that many were fired at Oran. Furious was also engaged at Oran. Its airgroup apparently destroyed 70 Vichy planes, presumably on the ground. Furious was noted to have a small quantity of Avgas, at 20,800 Gallons, but considering the speed with which the allies achieved their objectives, I doubt her fuel situation is critical,

Assuming they can get past all this, and Gibraltar (which has naval strike squadrons attached to it) then they must attack an American fleet all together comprised of:
1 CV
3 BB's,
4 CVE's
3 CA's
3 CL's
27 DD's

The Italian Fleet:

About the fleet I agree the question is how worried were the Allies. I agree with your numbers. The Italian numbers are from memory but if you wish to discuss it further I will did through my notes and find exact numbers. 3 modern battleships 2 updated battleships one of which cannot sail and two obsolete battleships which are still cruiser killers. Italians had lost a lot of cruisers at this point maybe 4-6 available same with destroyers maybe 20 available. That is six battleships against 2 battleships and 1 battle cruiser. that is enough to worry about even with an advantage in cruisers and destroyers. Some of those destroyers will have to be left to guard all the non combatant ships from submarines whether or not any are in the area. the British battleships and cruisers at Oran had subdued the city by bombardment. No idea how much ammunition they had left but they used some and possibly a lot. I think the Italian fleet potentially has a major edge if they fight only the British. I believe the Italian battleships in a daylight engagement were much better than the British ones. The modern guns were bigger, heavier, higher velocity, flatter shooting and more accurate. I believe Italian battleships were about 5000 tons heavier with resulting better armor (if you wish to discuss a naval engagement I can provide exact details). British King George V class ships were mechanically unreliable at this point in the war so their rate of fire would be expected to be much lower than the listed rate. Italian torpedoes were perhaps the best in the world after the Japanese ones. British torpedoes were not as bad as American but the detonators had problems. I think Cunningham was the best admiral the British had which is a major factor in their favor. The British carriers had at most 108 or 126 planes available. These planes were largely obsolete the crews of 1941 Taranto had been replaced by new pilots with little experience and British torpedoes were not completely reliable. Even without land based air cover I am not sure they were a major threat. I cannot think of any examples of them performing like American carriers against a moving fleet but this may be ignorance on my part. While I concede they might have disabled the attacking fleet I am more interested on what would happen if they performed very poorly and a surface engagement were fought. I do not think it would be as one sided as the numbers appear although I do not say the Italians would surely win.

Much better is a bit of an overstatement, IMHO. The Italian ships were well built, fast, had good optical rangefinders and fire control systems, pretty good quality armour plate, and dedicated and fairly professional crews, on the whole. However, they were actually known as being fairly lightly armoured (though this is always a complex calculation, and I believe they used a multi-layer angled armour scheme that made it more resistant to certain angles and locations of shells). They did not have radar or ASDIC and this was only partially compensated for by their excellent optical rangefinding and fire control. Due to an continuous lack of fuel they have had little ability for exercise, and their combat ops had been severely curtailed, leaving their crews with relatively little experience. The British, on the other hand, are largely using ships that have been in action for much of the war. They have a strong organizational experience in using their technical advantages of Radar, ASDIC and carrier based aviation to find and range in the Italian Fleet before the Italian Fleet can find them. They also have 3 carriers (39 Seafires, 35 Albacores, 35 Martlets, and 7 Fulmars for a total of 116 aircraft) which, in addition to the obvious striking power, are also invaluable in locating and directing the fleet to the enemy, as well as destroying any of the enemy's ship-launched aircraft that try to do the same to them.

However, all this assumes that the Italian Fleet can sortie. We have mentioned the Italians fuel issues before, but I have found a source that clarifies their situation a little more. "The Fuehrer Conferences on Matters Dealing with the German Navy, 1939-1945" has a section in Annex 2 Titled "Fuel Oil Situation" It says, and I quote:

"A. Fuel Oil consuption of the Navy was drastically reduced in April 1942. Between then and October, inclusive, naval forces consumed 472,892 tons, or 67,5002 tons of fuel oil per month. Reserves, which must not be permitted to fall below a certain minimum in view of the numerous refueling stations which must be supplied at great distances, amounted to 150,000 tons on 1 April.

A total of 81,000 tons was placed at the disposal of the Italian Navy since April 1942. Deliveries were stepped up beginning August 1942. These amounts were taken only partly from the monthly quota of the German Navy; the remainder came out of the reserves. Consequently, the German reserves have now reached a low of 131,900 tons on 1 November, 1942.

B. During the same period, The Italian Navy consumed a total of 411,000 tons, or approximately 60,000 tons per month. Now the Italians are asking for more than 80,000 tons per month. Italian fuel oil reserves amounted to 40,000 tons in the beginning of April. Since Rumanian deliveries have been decreasing steadily since June, the Italian reserves are down to 14,000 tons as of 1 November, in spite of all the German help. In other words, for all practical purposes there are no more reserves. As the result, the Italian Battleships had to relinquish all their oil and are consequently not ready for action. The cruisers at Navarino can keep their tanks only 4/5 full, and the cruisers at Nessina only 1/2 full. The Itallian bases in Dalmatia and in the Agean Sea have no more oil at all. The naval forces in the Agean Sea are being supplied with German Fuel Oil through the Commanding Admiral, Aegean Sea. It has already become necessary to postpone the departure dates of convoys or even to cancel them. It has also become necessary to forego certain operations, such as the pursuit of sighted submarines, because the naval forces simply do not have the necessary fuel oil." (Emphasis mine).

Basically, the Italian Fleet is a non-entity as far as Torch is concerned. It just can not sail across the western Med and engage in combat operations. The fuel does not exist.

The French Fleet:

It should also be noted that under the terms of the French Armistice with the Germans, the French Fleet was supposed to have almost all of its fuel removed from its ships, even those in active service, while in Toulon. It is possible that they could have squirreled some into the tanks under the inspectors noses, as they had when the Germans came to take them, but it is not guaranteed that they would be able to sail on the 9th.

I disagree with your submarine assessment. The Redoutable class was capable of 17-20 knots surfaced and 10 knots submerged. They could run the surface at night so could be in the area sooner than 4 days. While the Germans and Italians were never able to close the straits there are two differences here. The British never tried to push about 200 cargo ships through the strait at one. Also Vichy never allowed them to base submarines out of southern France or Morocco. How effective French submarines would have been is a fair question but the Allies had to assume fairly effective. Long term basing Italian and German submarines there could potentially shut down both the straits and Gibraltar. Letting a handful of French submarines shoot the cargo ships in the Atlantic would probably see high losses. Letting the French fleet do the same thing in the Atlantic would be even worse. Continuing the invasion as it went historically requires keeping the fleets divided enough for the French fleet to be a threat. Casablanca falling will not help the invasion fleet if the Vichy fleet is within range.

True, on the speeds of the Redoubtable, but check the ranges listed. At 7 knots submerged they have a range of 90 nm. It is 702 nm from Toulon to Gibraltar. Yes, if they are running on the surface at night they may be a fair bit faster, so 4 days might be overdoing it, but 2.5 still seems likely. It is also important to remember that the Allies have already pushed their invasion fleets into the Med. The ones in the Atlantic do not need to move. In the event that Morocco was given up, they could regroup further North or West. They do not need to chance the strait.

The Germans and Italians are not going to be able to base their submarines in Vichy territory immediately. And even if they could, it would not give them much more benefit during Torch that they did not have in OTL. There were U-boats harassing the Morocco landings in OTL, based out of the French Atlantic Ports, and over half of the active French submarine fleet was based in North Africa during Torch. Most of them in Casablanca. They did not seriously disrupt the landings and several were sunk in Casablanca harbour.

The Ground Forces:

Concerning the divisions I to initially found 12.5. However I looked up the French order of battle and have posted the names of 17 divisions in North Africa. I also could post about eight more colonial divisions that disbanded in France after the fall of France since at that same time about 8 divisions of so called police and border guards show up in north Africa. However I cannot prove those divisions were the source of the "border guards and police," but there were a lot of soldiers under other names in north Africa. This is against 5 Allied divisions and it would be several months before more show up. This is ignoring the Axis divisions that were used to capture Tunisia and at Kasserine Pass. It is true the Axis did not initially engage the invasion force heavily but after 4 days the fighting was over. Continued resistance certainly has the potential to change the Italian and Axis response. Even with Vichy cooperation it was two months before the Allies were able to launch anything resembling an offensive operation.

17 Regiments I could see. 17 Divisions, that I am a little skeptical of. This is from Wikipedia but everything I have seen more or less supports this OOB:
French Army – Morocco

• Fez Division (Maj. Gen. Maurice-Marie Salbert)
  • 4th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 5th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 11th Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 1st Foreign Cavalry Regiment
• Meknès Division (Maj. Gen. Andre-Marie-François Dody)
  • 7th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 8th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 3rd Moroccan Spahis Regiment
• Casablanca Division (Brig. Gen. Antoine Béthouart)
  • 1st Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 6th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • Colonial Moroccan Infantry Regiment
  • 1st Hunters of Africa Regiment
• Marrakech Division (Brig. Gen. Henry Jules Jean Maurice Martin)
  • 2nd Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 2nd Foreign infantry Regiment
  • 4th Moroccan Spahis Regiment

French Army – Algeria

• Algiers Division (Maj. Gen. Charles Mast)
  • 1st Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 9th Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 3rd Zouaves Regiment
  • 2nd Hunters of Africa Regiment
  • 1st Algerian Spahis Regiment
• Oran Division (Gen. Robert Boissau)
  • 2nd Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 6th Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 15th Senegalese Rifle Regiment
  • 1st Foreign Regiment
• Moroccan Division
  • 7th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 3rd Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 4th Tunisian Rifle Regiment
  • 3rd Foreign Rifle Regiment

The number of French soldiers is generally quoted at 120,000, with approximately 60,000 each in Morocco and Algeria. Against this the Allies landed about 33,000 at Casablanca and a similar number at Algiers. I don't have numbers for Oran but I would guess they would be similar. If so, that means the French were outnumbered in Algeria and had the numbers advantage in Morocco. The Allies would almost certainly have the logistics advantage though, and the remaining divisions in Morocco were closer to the border and would likely have to divide their focus. And, most critically, they have no way to resupply when they were already logistically short to start with.

Airpower:

Airpower. That is the question isn't it? I agree with your estimate for north Africa. It seems better than anything could turn up. I would like to focus on Allied airpower first. There were 400 land based planes allocated for operation Torch all crammed on the runways of Gibraltar. If Vichy launched an attack on Gibraltar like they did the last time the British attacked them all it would take is one bomb to wipe out all the planes for operation Torch much like the bomb that hit the Akagi did. This is because Gibraltar was stuffed full of planes fuel bombs and munitions all packed in close quarters.

AIUI, the French Bombed Gibraltar twice during 1940, once on 18 July and a much larger one over two days starting on the 25 September. The first did little damage. The second did considerable damage to naval installations, the port and the fortress. They also caused some fires to break out. In both cases, there was no British aircraft present. In this case, if they attacked before the end of the 8th they would find a very enthusiastic response from allied fighters. If they attacked after the 8th they would find most of the aircraft that had been packed into Gibraltar had already flown off for Algeria. Many of the later squadrons flew in from the UK. It is also notable that all of the bombers in those earlier raids came from North Africa. In this case, they will likely have other things to worry about. A strike from France might be possible, but it will be a longer trip.

The Allies cannot concentrate their airpower unless they join their fleets and leave one country undefended and this would allow them to be defeated in detail.

Neither can the French concentrate their forces. And as I have said, most of the French fighters would have lost their airfields and possibly been destroyed outright. I posted earlier that 28 spitfires landed on a captured airfield in Algeria. What I didn't mention was that a group of DW 520's engaged the last 4 spitfires as they were coming into land. They lost 3 DW 520's in exchange for 1 Spitfire. The DW.520 was a good plane, but it was not a Worldbeater by 1942. Particularly as the French Airforce had not been able to engage in large exercises and many of their pilots were not combat experienced.

The Germans captured 246 D520s from Vichy when they invaded and the Italians several dozen at least although I am unsure if these were first captured by the Germans and then given to the Italians but a minimum of 246 in France with 62 under construction. There were 30 in Senegal. There were 173 in north Africa of which 143 were operational. Of these 32 were lost in combat and many more were destroyed on the ground. The point is few aircraft were lost to fighters and against the British in the Levant campaign the British typically lost two to one or more to the D.520. This being the case somewhere around 300 D520s with low losses due to actual air to air combat is a potential threat. Fuel will be a problem for both sides (Allies had trouble unloading) but for discussion I would stipulate at least a week of fuel except for the carrier planes. There was enough for 289 planes to fly 266 missions in the Levant and it was less important than North Africa and much harder to supply. So 400 Allied land based planes 108-126 maximum for the British carriers and about 60 for the Ranger plus 30 each for 5 light carriers (not sure I this includes the Hurricanes and Sea Fires you mentioned). A two to one advantage for the Allies before combat and operational losses. This includes only Vichy fighters versus all types for the Allies.

Hmm, your numbers are different that what I have been finding. By my count, by the 9th, all Algerian airfields and presumably all Algerian aircraft are neutralized. That is three squadrons of fighters (73 aircraft) and 3 of bombers (41 aircraft). In Morocco both squadrons of fighters (59 aircraft) and one squadron of bombers (13 aircraft) have also lost their airfields, and possibly been destroyed. There are 34 fighters and 26 bombers in Tunisia, and 4 squadrons of day fighters, one of night fighters and 4 of bombers in France (No numbers of aircraft listed). The allies have, as mentioned above, 116 aircraft (81 fighters) with Force H, plus 107 F4F-4s, 27 TBDs and 36 SBDs in Morocco between Ranger and the CVE's, plus 39 Sea Hurricanes and 12 Seafires in Algeria with the CVE's. Add to this the land based Hurricaines and Spitfires on French airfields that I mentioned above, and I think the Allies have a very good chance against what is left of the Vichy air force and at least an even chance against the German and Italian Units.

This is ignoring Italian and German aircraft which could be quite substantial. I see the potential for it to go quite badly for the Allies. If the Axis send a major airstrike against the British carriers I do not see the British carriers being capable of stopping them.

The German 2 Air Corps did attack the landing forces at Algiers. To the best of my knowledge they did not do any significant damage. They did have a significant force based in Sicily but not all of them were available on the 9th. Still, that would be a significant threat. This, however, is a threat that the Allies faced in OTL.

Two things are surprising and dismaying to me. If the operation is carried on as it was historically the French fleet has a chance to destroy the American forces and the cargo ships massively hindering future ground operations. The same is true for the French force and the British navy at Oran. The Italian navy can definitely destroy the British navy at Algeris if half the navy is at Oran. If the British navy unites the French can destroy all the cargo ships at Oran and then destroy the American ships in the Mediterranean. I see 25 divisions against 5. The American divisions are under the worst American general and completely inexperienced with horrible performance in this theatre in actual history. Yet no one thinks it is in any way realistic much less necessary to consolidate forces to prevent the Vichy and Italian navies from defeating the Allied forces in detail. It took two months with Vichy cooperation for the Americans and British to unload enough supplies to launch an offensive but no one thinks a total of 25 divisions against 5 might make a difference even when the allied divisions are scattered across two large countries with no more than one division and often less at any location. Thee other dismaying and surprising thing is on a site supposedly dedicated to alternate history no one (with two exceptions) is even willing to discuss the alternate scenario and instead spend their time trying to prove no matter what changes are introduced it would go exactly as in actual history without the slightest variation

The Torch Landings are certainly not invincible. It was the first time a landing of this magnitude was conducted during WW2, and there are any number of things that could have gone catastrophically wrong. However, based on the time-frame given in the OP and based on the numbers I have been finding, I don't foresee the Vichy Forces in North Africa, or the Vichy Fleet in Toulon being a significant threat to the Morocco operation. The Vichy fleet would have to get by Force H, Gibraltar and the RN covering forces in the Med before engaging a USN fleet that is far from toothless itself. Algeria was effectively secure by the POD and land based airforces are coming in to support the ground operation. In Morrocco, the remaining Vichy forces would be cut off from supply and surrounded. I don't see North Africa itself going too differently.

The delay caused by dealing with those Vichy Forces could possibly create butterflies though. I have mentioned the possible problems in Tunisia, though I get the impression that the forces there, Vichy or German, were not ready to strike at the time of Torch. But still, a longer campaign in Morocco could affect things there. Also of interest is the effect on West Africa. Would they stay loyal to Vichy? If so, what forces would be needed to deal with them? There was, AIUI a naval force there at the time, though I don't have details on that.

In any case, regards, and thanks for giving me a reason to dig into this part of WW2.

 

[SwampTiger]

The above post is a great synopsis of the Axis position and capability. The Allies had considered an Eastern Option for Torch. This envisioned a landing at Bone, in eastern Algeria, to facilitate a quick capture of Tunisia. The Combined Chiefs of Staff vetoed the idea because of fears of Spain's threat to Gibraltar. Change that veto and you have Morocco fighting on. How it is supplied is beyond me.

 

[BlackDragon98]

The Allies aren’t scared of a death charge from a Vichy Fleet that has shitty aa and has hardly gone to sea since 1940, nor an Italian Fleet that doesn’t have the fuel to sortie, so they wouldn’t abandon Algeria or Morocco. Until substantial numbers of Italian/German Aircraft get to the French airbases, it’s the Vichy Airforce, fighting with out of date Aircraft, against crack Allied pilots in far better aircraft. The extra French divisions are also equipped with crappy weapons and would be rolled over by modern Allied units.

Also: superiority in everything but having 0 carriers vs double digits is a nice way for your fleet to be sunk.

Battle of Dakar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't underestimate Vichy France.
De Gaulle did at Dakar and he suffered for it.

 

[CV(N)-6]

Battle of Dakar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't underestimate Vichy France.
De Gaulle did at Dakar and he suffered for it.

The Vichy Fleet has been sitting on its ass for 2 years with a fleet of harbor queens, whereas the Allies have superior Radar, equal ships, more battle hardened crews, and air support they can actually count on. That’s more than equal to a French and Italian Fleet that hasn’t worked together before and lacks fuel. I can’t speak for Army and Air forces, but I don’t think the situation is far off there, either.

 

[jlckansas]

Battle of Dakar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't underestimate Vichy France.
De Gaulle did at Dakar and he suffered for it.

DeGaulle is not in charge of Torch, that alone goes a long way.

 

[Edward9]

Well, I have the opportunity to dive yet deeper into this subject I suppose.

Allied Fleets:

If the Allies are aware of the French Fleet sailing, I don't think the invasion fleet is what is going to meet them. As I said, Force H was the covering force, and was largely not engaged at this time. The French Fleet would, I think, be dealing with a large British battlefleet. The allies had separate fleet units covering each main landing area, I gave the compositions in my earlier wall-of text post but the Eastern and Central Task Groups both had 2 CVE's, a couple cruisers and 13 destroyers. I have since realized that this was just the covering force. Each landing group was additionally escorted by several destroyers and smaller ships as well as a cruiser or two in some cases. There is some overlap in the ship names listed so perhaps part of the covering force was used for these forces. Or at least, this is the case for the RN covered Central and Eastern Task Groups. The USN Western Task Group seems to have been arranged differently. In this case, looking at the escorting forces turned up, in addition to a number of DD and smaller ships, two more BB's (USS Texas and USS New York), 3 CL's, a CA, 4 more CVE's and USS Ranger.



As mentioned above, there were actually 4 "fleets" involved. The aforementioned Force H, as a covering force, and the three task forces each supporting a landing. Two of those have achieved their immediate objectives by the end of the 9th and are available if Force H is in need of quick reinforcements. By the end of the 9th the coast of Algeria is secure, as is the entirety of its offensive airpower (I checked, the airfields I wasn't sure of were in fact taken by the end of the ninth, which means there is no more Vichy offensive aircraft in Algeria). RAF Fighters had flown onto both Maison Blanche airfield near Algiers ( 2 squadrons of Spitfires and one of Hurricaines out of Gibraltar) and Tafaraoui airfield near Oran ( at least 28 Spitfires). In OTL the British alone would move 15 Squadrons of fighters, 12 squadrons of fighter-bombers, 3 squadrons of night fighters (Beaufighters) and a squadron of reconnaissance aircraft to Algeria by the end of the month. The US would move 18 squadrons of fighters (6 by Nov 8th according to my source), 16 squadrons of bombers, 9 squadrons of reconnaissance, and 12 squadrons of transport planes. It is possible some of this could have been sped up in an emergency. No guarantee, but its possible. So by the time the French Fleet could have sailed, the allies have control of the Algerian ports, over 30,000 men ashore in Algeria alone, aerial superiority over the Algerian Coastline, and a battlefleet of superior numbers to the Vichy Fleet between them and Gibraltar, and therefore, Morocco. Based on this, IMHO, the forces in Morocco, who I believe are also already on shore, can keep fighting to take Casablanca and the surrounding areas, while the forces in the Med deal with the French.


It would certainly be, but I am not sure which fleets we are discussing in this scenario. The most likely fleet for the French to fight is Force H. This had :
2 BB's and a BC to 1 French BC (two if we are being generous)
3 CV's to 0 French
1 CA to the French 4
2 CL's to the French 1
17 DD's to the French 13.

In addition to the above, the RN had two forces covering invasions that had already met their initial objectives, that could probably be called on if necessary. This included:
4 CVE's,
2 CA's
3 CL's
26 DD's

Of all of these, the only ones that I can find reference to participating in Bombardment are HMS Rodney (detached from Force H to the landing at Oran), and the Cruisers Aurora and Jamaica (Both part of the Oran covering force). I don't know how many rounds Rodney fired but according to NAVWeapons it should be carrying about 630 total. I doubt that many were fired at Oran. Furious was also engaged at Oran. Its airgroup apparently destroyed 70 Vichy planes, presumably on the ground. Furious was noted to have a small quantity of Avgas, at 20,800 Gallons, but considering the speed with which the allies achieved their objectives, I doubt her fuel situation is critical,

Assuming they can get past all this, and Gibraltar (which has naval strike squadrons attached to it) then they must attack an American fleet all together comprised of:
1 CV
3 BB's,
4 CVE's
3 CA's
3 CL's
27 DD's

The Italian Fleet:


Much better is a bit of an overstatement, IMHO. The Italian ships were well built, fast, had good optical rangefinders and fire control systems, pretty good quality armour plate, and dedicated and fairly professional crews, on the whole. However, they were actually known as being fairly lightly armoured (though this is always a complex calculation, and I believe they used a multi-layer angled armour scheme that made it more resistant to certain angles and locations of shells). They did not have radar or ASDIC and this was only partially compensated for by their excellent optical rangefinding and fire control. Due to an continuous lack of fuel they have had little ability for exercise, and their combat ops had been severely curtailed, leaving their crews with relatively little experience. The British, on the other hand, are largely using ships that have been in action for much of the war. They have a strong organizational experience in using their technical advantages of Radar, ASDIC and carrier based aviation to find and range in the Italian Fleet before the Italian Fleet can find them. They also have 3 carriers (39 Seafires, 35 Albacores, 35 Martlets, and 7 Fulmars for a total of 116 aircraft) which, in addition to the obvious striking power, are also invaluable in locating and directing the fleet to the enemy, as well as destroying any of the enemy's ship-launched aircraft that try to do the same to them.

However, all this assumes that the Italian Fleet can sortie. We have mentioned the Italians fuel issues before, but I have found a source that clarifies their situation a little more. "The Fuehrer Conferences on Matters Dealing with the German Navy, 1939-1945" has a section in Annex 2 Titled "Fuel Oil Situation" It says, and I quote:

"A. Fuel Oil consuption of the Navy was drastically reduced in April 1942. Between then and October, inclusive, naval forces consumed 472,892 tons, or 67,5002 tons of fuel oil per month. Reserves, which must not be permitted to fall below a certain minimum in view of the numerous refueling stations which must be supplied at great distances, amounted to 150,000 tons on 1 April.

A total of 81,000 tons was placed at the disposal of the Italian Navy since April 1942. Deliveries were stepped up beginning August 1942. These amounts were taken only partly from the monthly quota of the German Navy; the remainder came out of the reserves. Consequently, the German reserves have now reached a low of 131,900 tons on 1 November, 1942.

B. During the same period, The Italian Navy consumed a total of 411,000 tons, or approximately 60,000 tons per month. Now the Italians are asking for more than 80,000 tons per month. Italian fuel oil reserves amounted to 40,000 tons in the beginning of April. Since Rumanian deliveries have been decreasing steadily since June, the Italian reserves are down to 14,000 tons as of 1 November, in spite of all the German help. In other words, for all practical purposes there are no more reserves. As the result, the Italian Battleships had to relinquish all their oil and are consequently not ready for action. The cruisers at Navarino can keep their tanks only 4/5 full, and the cruisers at Nessina only 1/2 full. The Itallian bases in Dalmatia and in the Agean Sea have no more oil at all. The naval forces in the Agean Sea are being supplied with German Fuel Oil through the Commanding Admiral, Aegean Sea. It has already become necessary to postpone the departure dates of convoys or even to cancel them. It has also become necessary to forego certain operations, such as the pursuit of sighted submarines, because the naval forces simply do not have the necessary fuel oil." (Emphasis mine).

Basically, the Italian Fleet is a non-entity as far as Torch is concerned. It just can not sail across the western Med and engage in combat operations. The fuel does not exist.

The French Fleet:

It should also be noted that under the terms of the French Armistice with the Germans, the French Fleet was supposed to have almost all of its fuel removed from its ships, even those in active service, while in Toulon. It is possible that they could have squirreled some into the tanks under the inspectors noses, as they had when the Germans came to take them, but it is not guaranteed that they would be able to sail on the 9th.


True, on the speeds of the Redoubtable, but check the ranges listed. At 7 knots submerged they have a range of 90 nm. It is 702 nm from Toulon to Gibraltar. Yes, if they are running on the surface at night they may be a fair bit faster, so 4 days might be overdoing it, but 2.5 still seems likely. It is also important to remember that the Allies have already pushed their invasion fleets into the Med. The ones in the Atlantic do not need to move. In the event that Morocco was given up, they could regroup further North or West. They do not need to chance the strait.

The Germans and Italians are not going to be able to base their submarines in Vichy territory immediately. And even if they could, it would not give them much more benefit during Torch that they did not have in OTL. There were U-boats harassing the Morocco landings in OTL, based out of the French Atlantic Ports, and over half of the active French submarine fleet was based in North Africa during Torch. Most of them in Casablanca. They did not seriously disrupt the landings and several were sunk in Casablanca harbour.

The Ground Forces:

17 Regiments I could see. 17 Divisions, that I am a little skeptical of. This is from Wikipedia but everything I have seen more or less supports this OOB:
French Army – Morocco

• Fez Division (Maj. Gen. Maurice-Marie Salbert)
  • 4th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 5th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 11th Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 1st Foreign Cavalry Regiment
• Meknès Division (Maj. Gen. Andre-Marie-François Dody)
  • 7th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 8th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 3rd Moroccan Spahis Regiment
• Casablanca Division (Brig. Gen. Antoine Béthouart)
  • 1st Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 6th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • Colonial Moroccan Infantry Regiment
  • 1st Hunters of Africa Regiment
• Marrakech Division (Brig. Gen. Henry Jules Jean Maurice Martin)
  • 2nd Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 2nd Foreign infantry Regiment
  • 4th Moroccan Spahis Regiment

French Army – Algeria

• Algiers Division (Maj. Gen. Charles Mast)
  • 1st Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 9th Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 3rd Zouaves Regiment
  • 2nd Hunters of Africa Regiment
  • 1st Algerian Spahis Regiment
• Oran Division (Gen. Robert Boissau)
  • 2nd Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 6th Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 15th Senegalese Rifle Regiment
  • 1st Foreign Regiment
• Moroccan Division
  • 7th Moroccan Rifle Regiment
  • 3rd Algerian Rifle Regiment
  • 4th Tunisian Rifle Regiment
  • 3rd Foreign Rifle Regiment

The number of French soldiers is generally quoted at 120,000, with approximately 60,000 each in Morocco and Algeria. Against this the Allies landed about 33,000 at Casablanca and a similar number at Algiers. I don't have numbers for Oran but I would guess they would be similar. If so, that means the French were outnumbered in Algeria and had the numbers advantage in Morocco. The Allies would almost certainly have the logistics advantage though, and the remaining divisions in Morocco were closer to the border and would likely have to divide their focus. And, most critically, they have no way to resupply when they were already logistically short to start with.

Airpower:

AIUI, the French Bombed Gibraltar twice during 1940, once on 18 July and a much larger one over two days starting on the 25 September. The first did little damage. The second did considerable damage to naval installations, the port and the fortress. They also caused some fires to break out. In both cases, there was no British aircraft present. In this case, if they attacked before the end of the 8th they would find a very enthusiastic response from allied fighters. If they attacked after the 8th they would find most of the aircraft that had been packed into Gibraltar had already flown off for Algeria. Many of the later squadrons flew in from the UK. It is also notable that all of the bombers in those earlier raids came from North Africa. In this case, they will likely have other things to worry about. A strike from France might be possible, but it will be a longer trip.


Neither can the French concentrate their forces. And as I have said, most of the French fighters would have lost their airfields and possibly been destroyed outright. I posted earlier that 28 spitfires landed on a captured airfield in Algeria. What I didn't mention was that a group of DW 520's engaged the last 4 spitfires as they were coming into land. They lost 3 DW 520's in exchange for 1 Spitfire. The DW.520 was a good plane, but it was not a Worldbeater by 1942. Particularly as the French Airforce had not been able to engage in large exercises and many of their pilots were not combat experienced.


Hmm, your numbers are different that what I have been finding. By my count, by the 9th, all Algerian airfields and presumably all Algerian aircraft are neutralized. That is three squadrons of fighters (73 aircraft) and 3 of bombers (41 aircraft). In Morocco both squadrons of fighters (59 aircraft) and one squadron of bombers (13 aircraft) have also lost their airfields, and possibly been destroyed. There are 34 fighters and 26 bombers in Tunisia, and 4 squadrons of day fighters, one of night fighters and 4 of bombers in France (No numbers of aircraft listed). The allies have, as mentioned above, 116 aircraft (81 fighters) with Force H, plus 107 F4F-4s, 27 TBDs and 36 SBDs in Morocco between Ranger and the CVE's, plus 39 Sea Hurricanes and 12 Seafires in Algeria with the CVE's. Add to this the land based Hurricaines and Spitfires on French airfields that I mentioned above, and I think the Allies have a very good chance against what is left of the Vichy air force and at least an even chance against the German and Italian Units.


The German 2 Air Corps did attack the landing forces at Algiers. To the best of my knowledge they did not do any significant damage. They did have a significant force based in Sicily but not all of them were available on the 9th. Still, that would be a significant threat. This, however, is a threat that the Allies faced in OTL.


The Torch Landings are certainly not invincible. It was the first time a landing of this magnitude was conducted during WW2, and there are any number of things that could have gone catastrophically wrong. However, based on the time-frame given in the OP and based on the numbers I have been finding, I don't foresee the Vichy Forces in North Africa, or the Vichy Fleet in Toulon being a significant threat to the Morocco operation. The Vichy fleet would have to get by Force H, Gibraltar and the RN covering forces in the Med before engaging a USN fleet that is far from toothless itself. Algeria was effectively secure by the POD and land based airforces are coming in to support the ground operation. In Morrocco, the remaining Vichy forces would be cut off from supply and surrounded. I don't see North Africa itself going too differently.

The delay caused by dealing with those Vichy Forces could possibly create butterflies though. I have mentioned the possible problems in Tunisia, though I get the impression that the forces there, Vichy or German, were not ready to strike at the time of Torch. But still, a longer campaign in Morocco could affect things there. Also of interest is the effect on West Africa. Would they stay loyal to Vichy? If so, what forces would be needed to deal with them? There was, AIUI a naval force there at the time, though I don't have details on that.

In any case, regards, and thanks for giving me a reason to dig into this part of WW2.

If you would like to continue the discussion how about this?

Italians do not sail but the British do not know so they consolidate H force around Algeris.

French fleet sails and attacks either relatively undefended convoy at Oran or American fleet, your choice. For the Atlantic option the Richelieu joins the attack. American battleships and cruisers are low on ammunition and using dud rounds from the first World War. Carriers give 1942 performance. That means torpedo bombers do not count. Performance on non carrier targets in 1942 was really poor, only once damaged cruiser hit but with several attempts on battleships and planes at Midway. One hit on a carrier at Coral Sea plus an escort carrier sunk but two deck loads of carrier planes. Not sure about the Solomon Island campaign but America did not do very over all. Things turned around in late 1943. Also carrier planes are low on ammunition and fuel. Results up to you. The submarines attack Oran or in the Atlantic where ever the fleet did not go. French submarine performance was terrible in terms of results but I think they were unlucky. I postulate a much better rate of success if they attack non warships. Results up to you.

As far as planes I agree with your numbers for North Africa. For the D 520 I am confident partly because they later show up it Bulgaria and other places. If we use yours Vichy does not really have the ability to project power anyway, so lets use mine for the sake of alternate outcomes. I leave the target and outcome up to you. I have no idea how many bombers were in France. I suggest a 2:1 loss ratio in favor of Vichy if flying against British planes based on the Syria campaign and the British practice of sending older planes to Africa and keeping the modern ones at home. I suggest 1:1 against Americans who had better equipment but were inexperienced.

I have seen the numbers you quoted for the divisions and the post was initially based on them with two exceptions. There were about 80,000 military troops renamed "police" so not counted because of the German limit on the Vichy army. Of almost 38,000 soldiers in Syria only about 5,700 joined he free French. These divisions could not be sent to France because the Vichy army of 50,000 was at maximum capacity. The rest of the Empire had to been taken by De Gaulle so they had to be in North Africa. they were not with the army when the Germans disarmed it at Toulon. These soldiers are central to an alternate outcome both for the numbers and their proven performance against the British even when faced with air, artillery, tank, naval and numeric superiority. If these two groups totaling at least 100,000 combat experienced soldiers (I am assuming the "police" are the North African divisions that found in France) are to be dismissed then not really much point in a discussion. If they are included that is very different.

For Tunisia the commander did not know what to do so he resolved to fight anyone of either side who invaded Tunisia. With clear orders it might be different but only if more than the one and a half or so officially listed divisions are present meaning significant troops from Syria or "police."

Axis involvement I leave up to you. My computer is working real well right now so information is out of my head. The 5th Army of 5 good German and Italian divisions including the 10th Panzer, 334 Infantry for the Germans, the 1st Alpine and another regular infantry division and a combined division field something that was one of the best divisions with the best commanders in the war arrive under an incompetent in December (?) to reinforce the troops who had taken Tunisia in late November. even with Vichy cooperation the Allies were not able to claim Tunisia so December is the earliest they can mount a major offensive operation for whatever reason and that bodes ill for continued Vichy resistance.

Those are the factors I see. If you would like to continue the discussion let me know. If you disagree about the "police" divisions and the Syrian ones there is no point in the face of eventual Allied air superiority and Allied naval superiority. If they are on the ground that is a different matter.

This did not post (computer troubles) so I get to add. I propose Dakar remains loyal since they remained loyal last time the British attacked. Do not know the size of their forces or if any more than the Richelieu was there. They did have 35 Somua tanks which against early Shermans without wet stowage might make a big difference. Or not.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Allies withdraw the invasion fleet in response. Only Algeria has been secured. Fighting continues in Morocco and the Allies have unloaded only 25% supplies which were supposed to be landed during the initial invasion the previous day. Rough waves are preventing further unloading on 9 November. The fleet must leave today or 10 November at the latest. Over half the landing craft were destroyed on 8 November.

So for the second time in three months the US navy runs away from a potential threat abandoning troops on a hostile shore and taking away the majority of their supplies. The USN did this to the Marines on Guadalcanal and now its done it to the US Army in Morocco. They'll never be trusted to cover a landing again and Congress will gut them. Even if the Franco-Italian navies could sortie there's little chance they could make it into the Atlantic to able to interfere with the Moroccan landings so the USN withdrawal would be nothing but pure cowardice.

 

[Aber]

I suggest a 2:1 loss ratio in favor of Vichy if flying against British planes based on the Syria campaign and the British practice of sending older planes to Africa and keeping the modern ones at home.

Except the British didn't do that for Torch, they sent Spitfire Mk V.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205209165

 

[Zheng He]

The USN did this to the Marines on Guadalcanal and now its done it to the US Army in Morocco.

And fair or not, to this day Admiral Fletcher is a despised name in the US Marine Corps.

 

[Garrison]

Again this ultimately comes back to Nazi Germany deciding that French resources and labour are better spent rearming the French rather than arming the Wehrmacht and there seems to be no convincing argument for them doing so.

 

[ArtosStark]

Sorry for the delay

If you would like to continue the discussion how about this?

Italians do not sail but the British do not know so they consolidate H force around Algeris.

French fleet sails and attacks either relatively undefended convoy at Oran or American fleet, your choice. For the Atlantic option the Richelieu joins the attack. American battleships and cruisers are low on ammunition and using dud rounds from the first World War. Carriers give 1942 performance. That means torpedo bombers do not count. Performance on non carrier targets in 1942 was really poor, only once damaged cruiser hit but with several attempts on battleships and planes at Midway. One hit on a carrier at Coral Sea plus an escort carrier sunk but two deck loads of carrier planes. Not sure about the Solomon Island campaign but America did not do very over all. Things turned around in late 1943. Also carrier planes are low on ammunition and fuel. Results up to you. The submarines attack Oran or in the Atlantic where ever the fleet did not go. French submarine performance was terrible in terms of results but I think they were unlucky. I postulate a much better rate of success if they attack non warships. Results up to you.

The Allies had a lot of recon aircraft watching the Italian Fleet when they started their operation. When they did not sortie even after it became obvious that an invasion was underway, the allies felt comfortable releasing Rodney and Furious to the Central Task Group. The Italians would likely need to actually sortie to get a response from the Allies. If the French sortie, maybe Rodney and Furious are pulled back to Force H before they have helped the landing, so you might have that going for you.

OK, so we assume that the French Fleet can sail. The questions then to answer are when, where, and how fast? Let's now assume that it departs Toulon on November 9th at 0600 (which is really, really generous IMO) and is cruising at 17 knots (2 more than its listed cruising speed). It has 3 potential targets:

Algiers is 24 hours sailing. That puts the fleet there at 0600 on the 10th. The city is already in Allied hands. You can probably beat the covering forces there but then what? You could maybe smash up the port and any remaining cargo ships, but at most it will be a moral boost for the troops left in North Africa. You will not be able to take the city and you are risking your major mobile asset. Probably not worth it.

Oran is 32 hours sailing. The fleet would be there at 1400 on the 10th. The city will have fallen by then, with or without Rodney and Furious, and you will be in much the same situation as at Algiers.

Both of these options assume you can get by Force H. I won't say that that is impossible. But I will lay out what you are up against:

-4 submarines of 8 submarine flotilla (P.51 Unseen, P.221 Shakespeare, P.222 and P.229 Seraph) are floating off Toulon for this exact reason. You not only have to avoid losing any ships to them, but you would also, ideally, avoid being spotted by them. Maybe not impossible but not easy with a large fleet from a contained anchorage. And since we have already established that there are French resistance members/spies in Toulon we can probably assume that the fleet's departure has been noticed by either the subs or the spies.
-Once out of Toulon you then have to traverse the Med. Since you have been observed leaving and there are a limited number of places you are likely to be going, those routs are going to be patrolled by reconnaissance aircraft from Malta and Gibraltar. Maybe North Africa too. So it is likely that the Allies will at least have a fair idea of where you are headed.
-Force H is likely going to be sent to intercept you. So they will be deployed more or less along the course to your target. Even if you manage to lose the recon plane from earlier, you will eventually have to try and avoid being spotted by fleet aircraft. The Fairey Fulmar, of which Force H has 7, have a combat (or search) radius of 226 nm. meaning they can search 40% of the path between Toulon and Oran and 56% of the path between Toulon and Algiers. The Marlet IV, of which Force H has 35, have a combat/search radius of 245 nm. Meaning they can search 60% of the path between Toulon and Algiers and 45% of the path between Toulon and Oran. This is ignoring the other aircraft with Force H and those from the CVE's which could also be pressed into searching for the Vichy Fleet.
- Then there is Force H's radar. In the battle of the North Cape, the Type 284 radar on HMS Duke of York (the same one it would have been carrying during Torch, AIUI) allowed DOY to sink Scharnhorst without even seeing her. In comparison, the only references I can find on French Naval Radar refer to the unbuilt St. Louis class, and the Richelieu, which is in Dakar. So it is likely the Vichy Fleet is as blind at night as the Italian Navy was.
- If you get past all of these you then actually have to fight Force H. Giving the French Fleet some credit, it could be an effective fighting force and do some fair damage to the British fleet. But it will likely end up neutralized. And that is the end of its threat. Granted this puts the RN in a worse position than OTL but it will not help Vichy.

And then there is the Casablanca option. This is probably both the best and the worst option at the same time. On the plus side, this option might allow you to also sortie the Dakar squadron at the same time. Both forces converging on Task Group West would certainly be a worry for the Allies. However, it is 34 hours sailing from Toulon to Gibraltar, going through all the same obstacles listed above. Even if you avoid those you are not getting past Gibraltar unobserved. You are probably not getting past it unscathed. Then it is another 18 hours to Casablanca. That would put you there at 1000 on the 11th. That is not bad timing, as Casablanca hasn't been taken yet. So in theory you could cause some major damage, and maybe even save the city. It probably is your best option of the three, as far as reward goes. But you have to get there, past all the obstacles listed above. past Gibraltar, past the American fleet (including submarines of their own) and then disrupt the attack. Possibly under land air attack as the Northern Attack Group of the Western Task Force were carrying 76 P-40F's of the USAAF 33rd fighter group. And the Dakar squadron cannot help you yet. Even assuming they can sail at 17 knots, which based on later performance Richelieu cannot, it will take them 78 hours to get to Casablanca. That means they will be of no help until noon on the 12th.

I will not say it is impossible, but someone better be carrying horseshoes in their posterior when they leave Toulon and keep them there for the next 3 days.

As far as planes I agree with your numbers for North Africa. For the D 520 I am confident partly because they later show up it Bulgaria and other places. If we use yours Vichy does not really have the ability to project power anyway, so lets use mine for the sake of alternate outcomes. I leave the target and outcome up to you. I have no idea how many bombers were in France. I suggest a 2:1 loss ratio in favor of Vichy if flying against British planes based on the Syria campaign and the British practice of sending older planes to Africa and keeping the modern ones at home. I suggest 1:1 against Americans who had better equipment but were inexperienced.

Against Spitfire Vb's? The Spitfire has 21 mph higher top speed, a higher service ceiling and almost twice the rate of climb. On paper, the DW520 might outclass the Hurricanes and P-40's by a little bit, but not by much (those with more in depth knowledge can chime in on this if they wish). And at least the British pilots, and likely the American as well, have considerably more experience and a more developed training program than the French. I would give the edge to the Allies.

I assume that any fighters and bombers that survive will be running sorties as fast and as often as they are capable of. I am not sure how fast or often that will be or for how long they can keep it up, but I assume they will try. The fighters will likely be escorting the bombers, trying to strafe troop formations, trying to eliminate Allied fighters and trying to keep allied aircraft from doing the same to their troops. The bombers will probably be targeting anything that seems militarily valuable. Bridges, roads, Enemy formations, ships (good luck with level bombers not trained for maritime strike), vehicles ect, as well as supporting the ground forces. My money would be on the Vichy airforce being more or less eliminated by either attrition, base strike or lack of fuel by the end of the week at latest. But if they are lucky or better than I am giving them credit for, they might hit something important or make the campaign more costly for the Allies. I don't see them forcing the Allies to withdraw. I don't think they have the strength or the training to defeat the Allied airforces in a fast strike and in the long run the Alllies have many more aircraft to send to North Africa than France does.

I have seen the numbers you quoted for the divisions and the post was initially based on them with two exceptions. There were about 80,000 military troops renamed "police" so not counted because of the German limit on the Vichy army. Of almost 38,000 soldiers in Syria only about 5,700 joined he free French. These divisions could not be sent to France because the Vichy army of 50,000 was at maximum capacity. The rest of the Empire had to been taken by De Gaulle so they had to be in North Africa. they were not with the army when the Germans disarmed it at Toulon. These soldiers are central to an alternate outcome both for the numbers and their proven performance against the British even when faced with air, artillery, tank, naval and numeric superiority. If these two groups totaling at least 100,000 combat experienced soldiers (I am assuming the "police" are the North African divisions that found in France) are to be dismissed then not really much point in a discussion. If they are included that is very different

For starters, I think you may be overlooking the fact that those units from Syria may have been disbanded. If they are not needed to defend Syria, and the Germans aren't really happy with more French troops being concentrated in one place where they can't really keep an eye on them, the Vichy government may feel like they don't want to pay for them while Germany is draining them dry of resources and manpower.

The problem with the "police reserve" is that they have presumably spent the last two years being trained and outfitted as police. Vichy had trouble outfitting any of their troops, as Germany kept taking everything not nailed down and running interference on anything that could conceivably be used against them. So I doubt they have much in the way of supplies to add to the overall situation. If you are the commander in Morocco, you have three full divisions and maybe some elements of a fourth in Morocco, plus maybe some elements of the third. You may have contact with one more division in Algeria, possibly a few more elements as well. You had trouble finding adequate supplies when you were a static force of just three divisions. Now you need to supply all these extra forces while on maneuvers. Would you really want another 80,000 lightly armed men draining your precious supplies?

even with Vichy cooperation the Allies were not able to claim Tunisia so December is the earliest they can mount a major offensive operation for whatever reason and that bodes ill for continued Vichy resistance

True, but neither were the Axis prepared to attack the Allies. I am not sure if they ever planned to. I don't think the addition of the Vichy forces, or the lack of the fairly short campaign they fought against them, are going to be groundbreaking. At most I think it takes longer to take Tunis. Or the Allies surround it, leave it be and go around.

Its not that the Vichy fighting on the Axis side would have no effect. It would. But their contribution at this point would be somewhat similar to Italy's. And that is not a great recommendation in 1942. And I don't think anything that they can do in the first few days after Torch first lands can save North Africa. Though they might extend the campaign for a while if they are both lucky and determined.