Operation Wee Willie Keeler: Invading France in 1943

[ScrewySqrl]

"Keep your eyes clear, and hit 'em where they ain't"
-- Wee Willie Keeler, Baltimore Orioles, NY Yankees, 1892-1910 (b. 1872, d. 1923)

The above quote is the operating plan for this entire timeline, in reaction to the Dieppe raid. Some of it also comes from wanting to experiment with how certain Pacific War tech would fare against the Germans: Carrier raids establishing short term air superiority far from land based airbases, Corsairs and Hellcats vs the Luftwaffe, US Marine Corps combined arms close-air tactics against far tougher opposition than Japanese infantry. Some of the discussion comes from this thread:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=285956 although I was working on this from before hand

I hope to eventually have entire vignettes/short stories for this timeline.


anyway, here is the first entry in the timeline:

Aug 7, 1942, US Marines land on Guadalcanal

Aug 19, 1942, Dieppe Raid is smashed. UK 30 Commando, tasked with stealing a 4-rotor enigma, fails to find one, but does manage to recover a map showing the full deployment of troops in France that was supposed to be burned. Quick thinking by a 30 Commando sergeant burns a Michelin Road map (issued to all HQs) in its place to reduce the chance Germans realize their deployments have been captured [Major POD]

Aug 20, 1942, Map is brought to Commander Ian Fleming, creator of 30 Commando. Recognizing what he has, it is passed up the chain of command.

August 22, 1942: A combined staff meeting in London to discuss the failure of Dieppe comes to the conclusion that seizing a port and holding it on day 1 is not feasible However, with the captured map, some sort of invasion needs to be planned to take advantage of this knowledge. The strategy is described by the young American Colonel as “Hit ‘em where they ain’t.” Churchill in OTL reluctant to invade, likes this plan. It is decided in the wake of Dieppe that troops that still need more experience in amphibious operations, therefore Torch will proceed in November. Instead of a cross-channel invasion, a landing in Gascony in late spring or early summer, 1943 is planned (The ‘soft Underbelly of France’ as is pointed out to Churchill). Air raids will continue on northern France as part of a deception campaign. It helps that this is where most of the Luftwaffe is stationed. Attrition of these assets will be critical.

August 23, 1942, Battle of Stalingrad begins, though it is not recognized as such until the battle for the city bogs down in September.

November 8, 1942: Torch goes as planned. Eisenhower is in overall command of the forces in Western North Africa.

November 12, 1942 George Marshall is placed in overall command of all Allied forces in Europe, and transfers to London. The first two Essex-Class fleet carriers (Essex and Lexington II) and the first two Independence Class light carriers (Independence and Princeton) are to be assigned initially to the Atlantic fleet, where they will join the aging Ranger, in preparation for the landings. The rest will be sent to the Pacific as they are commissioned, as OTL

 

[Johnrankins]

There is no way the navy would send the Ranger. It is ancient but good for carrier practice. The USN needs to have its pilots practice landing on SOMETHING. What better choice is there than an obsolete carrier that is of little other use?

 

[ScrewySqrl]

November 19, 1942: Operation Uranus begins, cutting off the German 6th Army in Stalingrad, attempts to relieve Stalingrad by Heinz Guderian fail.

November 25-26, 1942: The Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. USS Washington sinks IJN Kongo and Kirishima, combined with the wild night melee the night before that crippled Hiei, the Japanese Navy has suffered too many losses to continue to try to reinforce Guadalcanal.

Dec 2, 1942. The exhausted US 1st Marine division is withdrawn from Guadalcanal for refit. The campaign had left the divison with 900 dead, 1600 wounded, and 8300 malaria cases. Instead of going to Australia as in OTL, all personnel travel by ship through Panama to Camp Lejune, NC, instead, arriving in mid January. The armored battalion of M3 Stuart Light tanks is supplemented by two battalions of surplus M3 Lees no longer needed by the Army, giving the division an integral armored regiment in addition to the integral squadron of fighter/bombers, upgraded to F4U Corsairs. The integral 155mm artillery unit detached for lack of transport at Guadalcanal is also reattached. They begin training to integrate the newcomers, as most of the Malarial invalids will remain stateside for treatment.

Dec 1942: USS Essex is commissioned and assigned to the Atlantic Fleet.

January, 1943: USS Independence is commissioned, followed in February by Lexington II and Princeton. Joined with the Essex into Task Force 41, under R. Adm. Ernest Whortier (commander, carriers, Atlantic Fleet), who transferred his flag from Ranger.

February, 1943: Surrender of Germany’s 6th Army ends the battle of Stalingrad.

Feb 1943 Task Force 41 forms up, including the new F6F Hellcat as the squadrons on Essex (VF-9) and Lexington (VF-16), while the light carriers still have Wildcats. In a proof-of-concept already well-established in the Pacific, the 4 carriers launch a 200-plane raid on Trondheim, Norway, attacking the U-Boat pens, Navy ships, and munitions stores. A total of 35 German Fighters came up to oppose the attack, shooting down only 5 attacking planes, at a loss of 12 of their own, as the Hellcat proved a match for the Bf-109s defending the German base. Captain "Butch" O'Hare, commander of VF-9, adds 2 swastikas to his 13 rising suns. Another 20 are destroyed on the ground, along with sinking the destroyer Paul Jackobi, and damaging the pocket battleship Lutzow. The U-Boat pens are damaged, as is the fuel storage bunkers. While a run on Tirpitz was attempted, the extremely heavy flak and the narrow fjord it was in causes the attack to be aborted almost as soon as it had begun. Regardless, operation as Trondheim are thrown into disarray for weeks, forcing the abandonment of attempts to disrupt Convoys PQ-8 and PQ-12 in March


--
I'm not sure exactly what German reaction to this remarkably successful Raid will be. Any German ace pilots in Trondheim at the time? I'd love to have one as a viewpoint character for the vignette.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

There is no way the navy would send the Ranger. It is ancient but good for carrier practice. The USN needs to have its pilots practice landing on SOMETHING. What better choice is there than an obsolete carrier that is of little other use?

Ranger was *ALREADY* in the Atlantic. It was old, but operational, in OTL it lead the taskforce attacking Casablanca in Torch. It wasn't converted to a training carrier until 1945. Langley is the training carrier, along with several escort carriers

 

[Johnrankins]

Ranger was *ALREADY* in the Atlantic. It was old, but operational, in OTL it lead the taskforce attacking Casablanca in Torch. It wasn't converted to a training carrier until 1945. Langley is the training carrier, along with several escort carriers

I must have remembered it wrong.

 

[phx1138]

November 12, 1942 George Marshall is placed in overall command of all Allied forces in Europe

What persuades FDR to release him?

There is no way the navy would send the Ranger.

Correct. She was unfit for combat operations.

The USN needs to have its pilots practice landing on SOMETHING. What better choice is there than an obsolete carrier that is of little other use?

That's not the reason she'd be retained, since the Navy was using paddlewheel flattops for deck-landing training: Wolverine & Sable.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

What persuades FDR to release him?

Correct. She was unfit for combat operations.

That's not the reason she'd be retained, since the Navy was using paddlewheel flattops for deck-landing training: Wolverine & Sable.

USS Ranger spent almost the entire war in the Atlantic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-4)

As in OTL, As the largest carrier in the Atlantic Fleet, Ranger led the task force that comprised herself and the four escort carriers. These provided air superiority during the amphibious invasion of Vichy-ruled French Morocco and the resulting Naval Battle of Casablanca, beginning on 8 November.


As for Marshall, its just one butterfly, Eisenhower just went in with Torch, in OTL, with no invasion of France until 1944, SHAEF wasn't set up until DEC 1943. Here, its set up in 1942, and Eisenhower has only JUST been sent to North Africa, Best choice of General here? Marshall, who was ALMOST SHAEF in OTL

 

[Aber]

The BIG question is who replaces Marshall?

Plus of course, why the British would accept an American in command with IIRC only 1 US division in the UK.

 

[bsmart]

I think you are making some assumptions that aren't valid

1) When a ship (especially a carrier) is commisioned does not mean it is ready for operations. The Essex was on shakedown followed by a refit (to fix problems found during shakedown) until May when she left for the Pacific. Even the long transit to the Pacific was used as an extended training period. So operations as early as February are not reasonable. In fact Lexington was commissioned in February but the first aircraft to land on Lexington was an F6F on 23 April.

2) The North Atlantic in winter is one of the roughest ocean areas of the world. Given the problems that Essex class carriers had in rough seas in the Pacific (collapsed bow flight decks) The one thing operations off Norway in winter would do would be to reveal this weakness sooner! The Independence class carriers may be more appropriate for the Atlantic since they have a bow that extends forward of the flight deck and do not have deck edge elevators.

 

[bsmart]

The BIG question is who replaces Marshall?

Plus of course, why the British would accept an American in command with IIRC only 1 US division in the UK.

Yes! Roosevelt would not have allowed Marshall to be selected for a position away from Washington. Look to Lesley McNair as a possible commander if it isn't Eisenhower.

There was at least one other US Division in the UK. The 29th was deployed early and trained for the Invasion in the UK. But the lack of Large formations in the UK during the buildup was actually part of the plan. It was more efficient to leave the units in the U.S. where they could train (and be fed) without putting additional strain on the transatlantic supply system. So until they were needed (just before the invasion) they remained in the U.S.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

I think you are making some assumptions that aren't valid

1) When a ship (especially a carrier) is commisioned does not mean it is ready for operations. The Essex was on shakedown followed by a refit (to fix problems found during shakedown) until May when she left for the Pacific. Even the long transit to the Pacific was used as an extended training period. So operations as early as February are not reasonable. In fact Lexington was commissioned in February but the first aircraft to land on Lexington was an F6F on 23 April.

2) The North Atlantic in winter is one of the roughest ocean areas of the world. Given the problems that Essex class carriers had in rough seas in the Pacific (collapsed bow flight decks) The one thing operations off Norway in winter would do would be to reveal this weakness sooner! The Independence class carriers may be more appropriate for the Atlantic since they have a bow that extends forward of the flight deck and do not have deck edge elevators.

I was assuming that the 3-4 months between Launch and Commission was that shakedown period, and that at time of Commision, it was ready to run.

As for the weather, surely the raid could be against ochefort or St. Nazaire instead.

 

[bsmart]

I was assuming that the 3-4 months between Launch and Commission was that shakedown period, and that at time of Commision, it was ready to run.

As for the weather, surely the raid could be against ochefort or St. Nazaire instead.

No - Launch to Commission is actually completion of the building process. Everything from guns to electronics, housekeeping equipment (bunks, Galley equipment, etc) are installed at this time. Ships were launched as soon as the hull was closed up and they could float so that another ship could be started on the building way.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

No - Launch to Commission is actually completion of the building process. Everything from guns to electronics, housekeeping equipment (bunks, Galley equipment, etc) are installed at this time. Ships were launched as soon as the hull was closed up and they could float so that another ship could be started on the building way.

alright, will have to do a bit of reworking and set the raids to happen in April/May/June, which still works for an August invasion.

 

[Aber]

But the lack of Large formations in the UK during the buildup was actually part of the plan. It was more efficient to leave the units in the U.S. where they could train (and be fed) without putting additional strain on the transatlantic supply system. So until they were needed (just before the invasion) they remained in the U.S.

The problem being that there is a lot more strain on the supply system when you try to move them across the Atlantic, unload them at British ports (remember daylight working hours only), and build the supply system to support them. Moving more than 2 divisions per month to the UK would probably not be possible at this time.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

A question on armor for the Marines:

in OTL in 1942-43, they usually had a battalion of M3 Stuart light tanks, which were more than aqdequate against the very light Japanese tanks, and were decent scout tanks.

In this Timeline, with the 1st Marines going up against germany (much as they had in 1918), I am expecting a heavier force attached. Here's what I'm thnking:

1) Surplus M3 Lee tanks.
Pros: far better than nothing. 75mm has an excellent HE round, and both the 75mm and 37mm AT rounds are functional against the most commen German armor of the period. Costs almost nothing to give them to the Marines, who often got Cast-offs from both the Army and Navy.
Cons: Functionally Obsolescent. Exceptionally tall, making cover difficult. guns were inadequate against the newest german frontal armor and guns (though Tigers and Panthers are going to be VERY rare in 1943. 90% of production was at Kursk), and rivetted armor in early models was a severe spalling risk.

2) M4 Shermans.
Pros: Plentiful (but still who is going short a battallion or two?), state of the art medium tank in 1943. Totally dominates any tank smaller than the Pz IV Ausf F2, and about equal to that. fantastic non-combat durabilty, range, and ease of maintenance. OTL the Marines didn't get Shermans until late 1944.
Cons: gun and armor still inadequate against top german armor hough the caveat above still applies). Poor ammo stowage in early models prone to fire and explosion

Tank Destroyers: Us doctrine was that Tank Dstroyers would be deployed to counter amored breakthroughs. An Early version of modern US war strategy of calling on the counter to stop something - call on Artillery against attacking infantry, TDs against Tanks, Fighers against bombers, etc). As such at least one Batallion of Army Tank Destroyers would be attached to the 1st Marine Division

with the Earlier invasion, and the need for lighter weight, I'm wondering if the T49 Light Tank Destroyer, in OTL passed all trials in dec 1942, but was never put in production, is put in production in 1943 as the M49? the T49 was built as a TD from the ground up, and was used as proof of concept for Buick's M18 Hellcat. With a need for TDs to go with the Marines and the tank's light weight (14 tons) and adequate firepower (the excellent, fast-firing 57mm gun. very similar to the British 6-pounder), and great speed (60 kph top speed) it might look good, in spite of weak armor. Likelyhood of using the T49 vs standard M10?

 

[ScrewySqrl]

bump.
Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

 

[Onkel Willie]

Interested in seeing where this goes.

 

[bsmart]

The problem being that there is a lot more strain on the supply system when you try to move them across the Atlantic, unload them at British ports (remember daylight working hours only), and build the supply system to support them. Moving more than 2 divisions per month to the UK would probably not be possible at this time.

I'm not sure moving 2 Divisions a month would be that much of a strain. Remember they didn't come with anything but personal equipment. They were issued all vehicles, crew served weapons, etc from prepositioned supplies once they were in the UK. and The Queens could carry a a Division each trip. I think they were on a 2 week round trip schedule (I will have to pull out a book not readily at hand to confirm.) There were several other large troopships that worked in special convoys that also brought large numbers of troops over.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

A question on armor for the Marines:

in OTL in 1942-43, they usually had a battalion of M3 Stuart light tanks, which were more than aqdequate against the very light Japanese tanks, and were decent scout tanks.

In this Timeline, with the 1st Marines going up against germany (much as they had in 1918), I am expecting a heavier force attached. Here's what I'm thnking:

1) Surplus M3 Lee tanks.
Pros: far better than nothing. 75mm has an excellent HE round, and both the 75mm and 37mm AT rounds are functional against the most commen German armor of the period. Costs almost nothing to give them to the Marines, who often got Cast-offs from both the Army and Navy.
Cons: Functionally Obsolescent. Exceptionally tall, making cover difficult. guns were inadequate against the newest german frontal armor and guns (though Tigers and Panthers are going to be VERY rare in 1943. 90% of production was at Kursk), and rivetted armor in early models was a severe spalling risk.

2) M4 Shermans.
Pros: Plentiful (but still who is going short a battallion or two?), state of the art medium tank in 1943. Totally dominates any tank smaller than the Pz IV Ausf F2, and about equal to that. fantastic non-combat durabilty, range, and ease of maintenance. OTL the Marines didn't get Shermans until late 1944.
Cons: gun and armor still inadequate against top german armor hough the caveat above still applies). Poor ammo stowage in early models prone to fire and explosion

It would be the M4. by this point the USMC were already training crew and organizing the new battalions with M4 so you are not diverting tanks from other units. The remaining M3 were regarded as un combat worthy for the ETO. Most still running were already enroute to India of on the docks waiting for their ship.

Tank Destroyers: Us doctrine was that Tank Dstroyers would be deployed to counter amored breakthroughs. An Early version of modern US war strategy of calling on the counter to stop something - call on Artillery against attacking infantry, TDs against Tanks, Fighers against bombers, etc). As such at least one Batallion of Army Tank Destroyers would be attached to the 1st Marine Division

Not unreasonable.

with the Earlier invasion, and the need for lighter weight, I'm wondering if the T49 Light Tank Destroyer, in OTL passed all trials in dec 1942, but was never put in production, is put in production in 1943 as the M49? the T49 was built as a TD from the ground up, and was used as proof of concept for Buick's M18 Hellcat. With a need for TDs to go with the Marines and the tank's light weight (14 tons) and adequate firepower (the excellent, fast-firing 57mm gun. very similar to the British 6-pounder), and great speed (60 kph top speed) it might look good, in spite of weak armor. Likelyhood of using the T49 vs standard M10?

Unlikely. If weight/size is a issue the more likely course would be collecting the old halftrack based TD from the depots. But, I personally cant see that. The advantages of the M10 would justify leaving behind parts of the TD battalion. Cutting some of the 20+ armored cars of the TD battalions would be a start.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Yes! Roosevelt would not have allowed Marshall to be selected for a position away from Washington. Look to Lesley McNair as a possible commander if it isn't Eisenhower.

Devers was commander of US forces in the UK at this time. His seniority, ability to work with the Brits, and track record in the US Army made him far more likely than McNair. I strongly suspect that is why Marshal recommended him for command in the UK, so he would have someone ready to draw on should someone Marshal had confidence in be wanted.

However I agree with the folks arguing here the commander for Op Squirrel is likely to be British. A senior US commander wont be ashore until it is time to set up a army HQ for US forces ashore.

There was at least one other US Division in the UK. The 29th was deployed early and trained for the Invasion in the UK. But the lack of Large formations in the UK during the buildup was actually part of the plan. It was more efficient to leave the units in the U.S. where they could train (and be fed) without putting additional strain on the transatlantic supply system. So until they were needed (just before the invasion) they remained in the U.S.

Plus the number of air wings, bomber and fighter destined for the UK had increased over that of the early plans.

US ground divisions in position for this adventure were: 29th in UK, 5th Inf Div in Iceland, Pattons Corps is sitting idle in Morroco in this scenario which includes the 2d Armored Div, 3rd & 9th ID. The US II Corps in Tunisia could be returned to the Atlantic for Op Squirrel or remain in the Med. In the US there were over fifty divisions organized at this point. A look at Stauntons 'US Army OB in WWII' shows half those had completed conversion to the new '1942' Inf Div organization, and completed a full training cycle. So, there are perhaps thirty and probablly at a minimum fifteen infantry and armored divisions available to used in Op. Squirrel.

Since Pattons Corps managed to conduct a amphibious assault all the way from the US with no intermediate stopover we might think the same could be done again in this operation. Since there is little point in keeping Pattons Corps idle in Morroco at least the armored and one Infantry Div could be embarked for a assault in Op Squirrel. Since the 3rd & 9th ID had been part of Amphibious Forces Atlantic Fleet in 1942 and trained alongside the 1st Marine Div in AFAF, and had one combat landing under their belt they would be logical choices for the early portion of Op Squirrel.