The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Invasions 1942

311 LST/APA and LSI used for Overlord around 1m ton worth and 76 LST listed in the OOB for Husky.

The brits have probably completed about half of total allied war production of LCT already (which is a little better than OTL but not a lot) and could have all the UK LSI available - not that many to begin with.

I think its more likely than not that the Brits alone could mount a Husky type operation in 42 - based on possible shipping production but there would be a need to specifically produce the specialised shipping and probably a 4-6 month delay from decision to go to having the shipping ready (plus transit times). Even if that decision had been made the far east could well have put things on hold. I think a date in the second half of 42 much more likely or a single division assault.

Single div assault would be based on taking a port - Dieppe vs italians. But the 43 planning said both Catania and Palermo were needed to support enough troops to take the island (10 1/2 div).

Someone may take a risk on that, someone is probably doing some fortune telling to the italians.
 

abc123

Banned
About "soft underbelly" I would rather go for Sardinia as first target, not against Sicily.
I agree, Sicily may be more important because of shipping trough Mediterranean, but Sardinia is harder to support and supply for Italians and also gives Britain more options for future attacks ( Germans and Italians don't know wether next target is Corsica or Sicily ).
 
Gannt

Fascinating details and also interesting how much better the shipping situation was.

I think the empire had gone to widespread local food production to minimise shipping demand virtually from the start of the war, or at least from the fall of France because they realised there was going to be serious problems, both in shipping and in funding the supply. As such there will be less efficiency in overall economic operation and disruption of many areas pre-war economic structure, although the markedly better military position would mean that the pressure is less than OTL. Also with better supplies to Britain it can probably produce more both military and industrial goods for the empire, reducing the reliance on US exports.

My personal preference would be to only have one major fight at a time, even if the shipping and manpower is available for a landing in Italy. After all you don't want to commit to a landing in Italy then find the Japanese threat is markedly larger than required and you desperately need some of that shipping/forces to help out in the east. Also Britain is planning on taking the offensive in Europe in a significant way with the campaign against the Rhur. It won't satisfy Stalin of course, nor would it his 'fools' who will want men on the ground. However if it worked, which I presume it won't do much better than OTL, it would have a dramatic impact on the war.

Steve

Totally agree about the prospects for a chindit operation in Thailand.

Usertron asked about UK (allied) shipping resources.

Not sure but its gives me a chance to say this. The reduction in sinkings = around a full years UK merchie production OTL.

I think we have U Boat sinkings at 80% OTL and I think a lower ship repair rate, at least in UK yards due to lower levels of damage so possibly more new construction. There is also faster clearing of NA and shortening of routes to the Far East so less demand. All of these by the miracle of compound interest will magnify as time goes on. By EO 41 at these rates Britain has 1.170m GR ton more shipping than OTL and by EO 42 the reduction in losses would be 1.8m GRT (1940 losses being 2.05m GRT by way of example).

OTL UK launches in 40/41 were 1.85m GRT so the net position at eo 41 is +3m GRT or basically the equivalent of all losses for 1941

All available shipping (allied and neutral) would be a reduction of a around .9m GRT pa for 1941 and 42. The U boat war has net taken around 2m GRT out of the world vs

Its quite possible that the UK does have the shipping to maintain the SEA and a limited Med strategy on its own. With US shipping production coming online later in the year who knows.

For example at some points UK steel production was lowered because the shipping space for ore was used for meat imports. More ships that does not happen, therefore more steel therefore more ships.

A possible butterfly away of the MESC in favour of a more London/Delhi centric approach to Empire supply would lead to more expert administration at both ends. (why set up something to deal with a war in NA when there isn’t one).

Another one is Burmese rice.

Apparently (Collingham - The Taste of War) Burmese rice is a staple for Burma, India, Ceylon, South Africa, Fiji , Mauritius, Kenya, Gambia and Zanzibar. Holding on to that net saves either on a lot of shipping needed to replace that comparatively local trade. The other sources would be local cultivation or imports from ?US, River Plate countries/White Commonwealth. OTL.

Overall I think the pre war Empire trade network is likely to be much better preserved with two consequences.

There will still be a more exploitative approach to the colonies, aka more investment but without the OTL impoverishment of the peasantry, switching from cash crops to subsistence farming and more choice by the people as to whether they go to work in the mines, join the Army or farm daisies or trade Gambian cocoa for Argentine beef for Jamaican Bauxite etc. All of that means the cash position of the empire as a whole is better and the distortion of LL in Africa , only the rich - white - farmers could afford US dollar denominated machinery and supplies so benefited from the boom disproportionately. If there is more Sterling denominated more people can afford to invest. If there is more demand (and capacity or investment cash) more of that will be supplied either from UK or UK owned sources.

There is likely to be a broader enrichment of the African and islander populations (as there was in India) due to wartime investment and military service and probably a more educated and possibly cosmopolitan middle class post war. In some places - Kenya comes to mind that could be highly significant. That might speed up decolonisation but would also make it a much better experience all around.

And of course any Empire supply of the increasing US demand improves the empire dollar position which allows for ….
 
I can't help thinking that post-war the British position will be better on so many levels. One can only hope this reflects into a more sensible de-colonization and a closer Commonwealth.
 
About "soft underbelly" I would rather go for Sardinia as first target, not against Sicily.
I agree, Sicily may be more important because of shipping trough Mediterranean, but Sardinia is harder to support and supply for Italians and also gives Britain more options for future attacks ( Germans and Italians don't know wether next target is Corsica or Sicily ).

No I think Sicily would be better for both military and political reasons. Same as OTL really. Invading Sardinia looks like a soft option and would be a relief to the Axis.

Invading Sicily hurts the Italians more and will look better to world opinion. It also causes more trouble for the Italian government and forces the Germans to divert forces from other theatres.
 

abc123

Banned
No I think Sicily would be better for both military and political reasons. Same as OTL really. Invading Sardinia looks like a soft option and would be a relief to the Axis.

Invading Sicily hurts the Italians more and will look better to world opinion. It also causes more trouble for the Italian government and forces the Germans to divert forces from other theatres.

True, but Germans would have to divert forces if Sardinia is attacked too...
And from Sardinia, you can go anywhere, attack Sicily, land behind Sicily in Italian Peninsula, attack Corsica ( very good for relations with the French )...
I would actually leave Sicily alone, Island hopping in Mediterranean...
 
True, but Germans would have to divert forces if Sardinia is attacked too...
And from Sardinia, you can go anywhere, attack Sicily, land behind Sicily in Italian Peninsula, attack Corsica ( very good for relations with the French )...
I would actually leave Sicily alone, Island hopping in Mediterranean...

abc123

I would say Sicily has to go at some time, to make the Med a lot safer a route for convoys. However you do raise an interesting point about possibly taking Sardinia 1st. Especially since it should be easier for a resource limited Britain and makes it possibly less likely that the Germans would reinforce Sicily. [If their thinking that the allies are taking a route towards Corsica and then either Italian mainland or S France.

Would agree with Gannt that any attack on either target, or elsewhere, is more likely to be in the 2nd half of the year.

Steve
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I agree that Sardinia is a interesting option but can the Allies project enough airpower over the island as it's further away from the North African bases then Sicily?
 
I agree that Sardinia is a interesting option but can the Allies project enough airpower over the island as it's further away from the North African bases then Sicily?

IMO not enough. I also think that was another reason for choosing Sicily OTL. You've got fighter cover from Malta.
 

abc123

Banned
abc123

I would say Sicily has to go at some time, to make the Med a lot safer a route for convoys. However you do raise an interesting point about possibly taking Sardinia 1st. Especially since it should be easier for a resource limited Britain and makes it possibly less likely that the Germans would reinforce Sicily. [If their thinking that the allies are taking a route towards Corsica and then either Italian mainland or S France.

Would agree with Gannt that any attack on either target, or elsewhere, is more likely to be in the 2nd half of the year.

Steve


Well, since Allies can pretty fine transit trough Mediterranean allready and you will never have perfect security, I would rather leave Sicily alone. I would let the Germans send there all reinforcements they have, and after that I would surprise them with attack on Corsica. That would confuse them properly.
After that they can choose between South France, Campania or Sicily and can freely put all their available forces there while I attack Normandy...
 

abc123

Banned
IMO not enough. I also think that was another reason for choosing Sicily OTL. You've got fighter cover from Malta.

What's the combat range of most important British fighters ITTL?
Also, few carriers should do the trick, after all Italians don't have unlimited quantities of fighters there too...
 
The British still don't have that much experience of amphibious warfare and OTL they never stuck their neck out too far for fear of decapitation. When they did that OTL in Norway and the Dodecanese they failed.

Sticking close to full land based aircover would make more military sense even if it looks plodding. The British army is not good at strategic brilliance and lighting thrusts unless it's against a poor ill equipped enemy. That has been true in EVERY war Britain has had.

The Italians in early 1942 would be better equipped than earlier, closer to their own bases and the Luftwaffe is still unbroken. Corsica would be a disaster IMO and Sardinia becomes a slog on an unimportant island with a longer supply chain open to interdiction. Also if you have a few days of rough sea the carriers won't be able to operate while the land based airpower of Europe is descending on you.
 

abc123

Banned
The British still don't have that much experience of amphibious warfare and OTL they never stuck their neck out too far for fear of decapitation. When they did that OTL in Norway and the Dodecanese they failed.

Sticking close to full land based aircover would make more military sense even if it looks plodding. The British army is not good at strategic brilliance and lighting thrusts unless it's against a poor ill equipped enemy. That has been true in EVERY war Britain has had.

The Italians in early 1942 would be better equipped than earlier, closer to their own bases and the Luftwaffe is still unbroken. Corsica would be a disaster IMO and Sardinia becomes a slog on an unimportant island with a longer supply chain open to interdiction. Also if you have a few days of rough sea the carriers won't be able to operate while the land based airpower of Europe is descending on you.



Corsica would be "a bridge too far", I agree....
Seriously, I don't know what are Italian land and air forces in Sardinia, but I doubt that they have a lot there... And it is significantly harder for them too to supply Sardinia than Sicily.
 
On shipping.
Britain has had lower shipping losses for a number of reasons

15% lower losses in the Atlantic due to better air cover.
As the escort carriers have been able to drive off the LW, more ships have been able to use the southern NA route, resulting in far less damage to shipping (a few more losses, but well outweighed by the damage reduction)
Smaller northern convoys to Russia (the US will have to pick up more of the LL)
Opening of the Med. This is a huge improvement; its reduced the shipping time to the Med forces to about 1/3 of OTL, AND the ships can come back with useful cargo - prewar, almost half Britains iron ore imports were from NA, for example. They can also ship cargo along the coast using small coastal shipping that wasn't available with a hostile Med.

The net result is that while shipping is (and will always be) tight, there is a sufficiency to supply both the Med and the far East (also remember that this time the Japanese havent been able to destroy allied merchant shipping in the Far East, the large bulk of it has been able to withdraw safely).
 
No I think Sicily would be better for both military and political reasons. Same as OTL really. Invading Sardinia looks like a soft option and would be a relief to the Axis.

Invading Sicily hurts the Italians more and will look better to world opinion. It also causes more trouble for the Italian government and forces the Germans to divert forces from other theatres.

The last part you actually want to avoid, in this instance. ITTL there are very few German troops in Italy. Considering one goal is to topple Mussolini and knock Italy out of the war. If that happens you want as few Germans as possible in Italy.

Of course we have perfect 20/20 hindsight about what happend in in Italy in OTL. Something the British and Free French do not have ITTL.

But they do know that they have hurt the Italians badly, by taking Libya and Italian East Africa (even if Ethiopia hasn't been liberated yet ITTL, I've lost track, but it has been cut off and might as well be on the moon). Not to mention the complete destruction of the Regia Marina.

Regardless of if it is Sardinia or Sicily first, both are on the chopping block. That should be the crippling blow to take out Mussolini, because ultimately, it was his rash decision to go to war, that has led Italy to it's disastorous position. If the King was willing to dump him in OTL 1943 even with Germans crawling all over Italy, then he will probably do it ITTL 1942 where he has more freedom of action.

Even though Allied troops will not be on the peninsula anytime soon, the utter destruction of the RM is probably a good substitute as a driver towards Mussolini's downfall.

Ideally for the allies, Italy would switch sides, and you would get allied troops on the Continent again. Granted it would be a stalemate at the Alps, but it would be symbolic. And by 1944 you might have a decent sized, US equipped Italian army to help out, when the Allies do take the offensive.
 
The allies (the British in particular) have reasons for wanting to land on an Italian possession. They've been talking (very quietly and unofficially) with some people in or close to the Italian government.

However the logical time for an operation (as its had to be postponed due to Japan) would be soon after the German summer offensive in Russia kicks off and ties up their troops.

It should also be noted that apart from a (relatively small) LW presence, there are not large numbers of German ground forces in Italy - indeed, Italy is currenly bringing back some of its army in Russia, they are being replaced by German units that were in NA in OTL. The Italian argument has more force this time, pointing out that while they lost to the British in NA, the Germans didn't do any better..and Italy is best defended by Italians.
 
SteveP

Actually the UK had not gone for development of the Empire much at all pre war. The colonies were expected to be self sufficient with pockets of cash crops and mining not a drain on the public purse. The immediate effect of the war was investment, employment and remmitances from the armed forces low level industrialisation and prosperity, (high level industrialisation and a boom in India) but with relatively little to buy with inflation more of a problem early on.

The real problems begin from 42/43 due to shipping problems and the lack of Burmese rice, which itself compunds the shipping problem. Together with a drought in Africa in 42 (300,000 dead in Rwanda for example) and are exacerbated by the subsitution of cheap rice for expensive US wheat and the inflation which kills (often literally) the nascent boom and a diversion of 60% of the Indian ocean shipping (2m tons) to support the build up for Overlord during 43 and on. That’s almost exactly the additional shipping available TTL. Have more shipping available, the rice not mention Punjabi wheat and Indian cloth, Cyprus oranges, Mauritius sugar Nigerian soap and concrete is all available to feed a significant improvement in Africa. Tata is going to be very big a lot sooner.

If something like the MESC which did a good job in the middle east could focus on the whole of the African hinterland not just the immediate military zone, some regulation (there was none) butterflies this away, given the shipping. In fact give a bigger say in the control of shipping to the Brits with a wider view and TTL more resources to play with and decisions made by a US/Canadian/British food distribution board (which might just favour wheat growers) could well be radically different. The tone of the TL is more assertion by the UK so its feasible to have the British Empire much much stronger throughout and after the war.

Personally I would like to see the Bechuanaland Impi (mechanised) kick Liebstandarte ass somewhere. And given the number of African supply drivers in the mid east its not too ASB.

Wiki lists 7 Italian divs (including coastal) in Sardinia at some point so it would not be a walkover.

Regarding Sicily Hyperwar has the planning docs and my reading is that against a 12 div Italian force a year later (its arguable whether they are better or more demoralised in 42 TTL) the allies reckoned they needed 10.5 divs and to sustain that force level they needed either Catania and Palermo which requires two landings OR Messina. Messina was rejected because the straight was not controlled by allied navies AND because it was out of range of air cover. Sardinia for me is out as is Sicily until there is enough shipping for two landings. Of course if Astro has a cunning plan then a grab it and hold operation is feasible with a single port you only need two to support 10 divs.

The Axis do not know all of this and have a different appreciation of logistics (I.e. they don’t understand it) and the importance and effects of allied air power (I.e. you are going to fight a more or less static war of material and our problem is replacing the barrels after we have fired the rifling out, then we get the pursuit). If there is a push for something in the first half of 1942 then the Aegean is most likely. Which I think would give significant problems for all of the German minor allies in one way or another.
 
The British still don't have that much experience of amphibious warfare and OTL they never stuck their neck out too far for fear of decapitation. When they did that OTL in Norway and the Dodecanese they failed.

I agree that they need to be careful and the precedence from both OTL and so far TTL are not good.

Sticking close to full land based aircover would make more military sense even if it looks plodding. The British army is not good at strategic brilliance and lighting thrusts unless it's against a poor ill equipped enemy. That has been true in EVERY war Britain has had.

I can think of a couple of exceptions, i.e. Wellington in Iberia and Marlborough during the Spanish succession. Also some of the fighting in India was against fairly well trained armies equipped to European standards, although there might be arguments over their moral and organisation.;)

The Italians in early 1942 would be better equipped than earlier, closer to their own bases and the Luftwaffe is still unbroken. Corsica would be a disaster IMO and Sardinia becomes a slog on an unimportant island with a longer supply chain open to interdiction. Also if you have a few days of rough sea the carriers won't be able to operate while the land based airpower of Europe is descending on you.

I think people are talking about Corsica after Sardinia, whereas are you talking about instead of it?

Steve
 
The purpose of the Royal Navy is to ensure that the army is always fighting against a poor ill equipped enemy - eventually.

I would also add the destruction of the German field army in 1918( Amiens, storming the Hindenburg Line, St Quentin canal, etc the Turkish in 17/18 and the advance through Burma in 45. The defence of Western Germany in the 7 years war, Battle of the Dunes and taking Dunkirk in the 1650's (why sir would I propose the storming of a wall unbreached protected by a ravelin also unbreached the King my Master would have my head and rightly so said the Marshal of France, guess how he was woken up).

Burning Washington is always good for a laugh not to mention the taking of Canada (all of it) in an afternoon.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top