No, shipping is vastly cheaper per mile ton then trains if both are an option.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
No, shipping is vastly cheaper per mile ton then trains if both are an option.
Well for one if Weygand declares for the allies it means no Operation Tourch which means a lot more unblooded and unseasoned US Army, Navy personnel in Europe which probably means greater casualties.
Throwing this onto the pyre as well the Americans will probably have a harder time military wise throwing their clout around.
Throwing this onto the pyre as well the Americans will probably have a harder time military wise throwing their clout around.
Well I was thinking mostly because supplies sent by rail through Tunisia (thus avoiding Cape Bon) are less likely to run afoul of Italian submarines or air attack.
Also having a redundancy/back up transport modus is a good thing in an active war zone
It's going to make inter allied cooperation much more difficult, the British (rightly) won't feel they need to be rescued and won't be willing to cede leadership to green Americans, especially if the British Far East holds well against the Japanese while the Americans still suffer 6 months of defeats. At a certain point sheer numbers of Americans are going to necessitate an American Supreme Commander, probably Eisenhower but it's not going to be August 1942 and it's not going to be in the Med.
Yep also need to consider out east with the allied victory that idiot MacArthur may have a very good PR offensive but if he doesn't win any where the Australians and New Zealanders can probably oppose him if they choose to as well. Though he may still get in as well the bloody social general wish someone better was available when he does his McClellan impression by 'failing to win.'
Also yes allied supreme command will probably go to the USA since they bring the larger slice to the pie though I could see O'Connor being kept as ground forces commander.
The question mentioned the rail from Egypt. As the best rail laying achieved on that stretch was a mile a day, getting the rail line to even Tripoli would take longer than the war lasted.
Fair. What about getting to Tripoli/Misrata from the existing Tunisian and/or Algerian network?
Not sure. I seem to recall the Tunisian network was a number of gauges and was not actually connected from Tunis to the border. I think Tunis went part of the way, then there was a considerable gap and then IIRC Sfax had a small network, but not the same Gauge? That was serious drawback for the Germans when they were pushing Darlan to allow them to land stores at Tunis or Bone. That is why they wanted a large number of French trucks, so they could handle the transhipment needed between the two networks.
And none of this was built for heavy running. My Railway modelling days are well behind me now but ISTC that they used lightweight rails and minimal ballast, so accidents waiting to happen. I would suggest if you measured the distance from Tunis to Tripoli and assumed about a third of it was existing ( but in need of serious upgrade to make it work) and then applied the mile a day rate, you could work it out.
also see the discussion here. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99035 very informative.
As someone else suggested, any heavy transport was cheaper and faster being sent by sea than by North African Rail.
And none of this was built for heavy running. My Railway modelling days are well behind me now but ISTC that they used lightweight rails and minimal ballast, so accidents waiting to happen. I would suggest if you measured the distance from Tunis to Tripoli and assumed about a third of it was existing ( but in need of serious upgrade to make it work) and then applied the mile a day rate, you could work it out.
also see the discussion here. https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99035 very informative.
As someone else suggested, any heavy transport was cheaper and faster being sent by sea than by North African Rail.
All very true. Still doesn't get around the issue of Axis interdiction of the sea-lanes though.
What interdiction? After North Africa joins the Allies, convoys can hug the coast under air cover.
Submarines and aircraft are going to be issues. Things will get safe once they have Pantelleria.
Mark1878
Donor
Isn't it easier for an aircraft to hit a railway which does not move and is over a long distance rather than a moving ship which if in convoy is covered by anti-aircraft fire and where the defending aircraft knows where the attack will be.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
There is to my mind, only one major theatre of war ITTL, where the Americans might if the British are significantly stubborn, accept a British Supreme Commander, even though they have major assets in theatre. This is the Atlantic, which should have had a SAC IOTL but thanks to a curtain pig headed American Admiral, no SAC was appointed. Given just how vital this campaign was to the British, it was the only one that if lost would see the British effectively out of the war. The lack of a SAC to coordinate all shipping and aviation movements and assets, plus ensuring that information and intelligence was properly distributed. Along with integrating, usage of ports, harbours and railways to maximise the shipping process, was to an extent criminal. Yes the area should have been divided, with local commanders in each area, such as American coast, Canadian coast, Caribbean, Western Approaches, Gibraltar, UK home waters, etc. But the appointment of one overall SAC to integrate these efforts and occasional bang heads together would have been an advantage.
RR.
RR.
Fair comment. Mind you, a convoy is an obvious target, a train perhaps less so (is any particular train war materials, or is it purely civilian?). Trains are also not particularly susceptible to submarines IIRC.