What do the British do in late 1942 if the Americans refuse to do 'Torch'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But they did eg at El Aghelia the New Zealand Division outflanked Rommel's forces and got behind them, but was unable to stop their escape across open desert.

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Bard-c3-6.html

Which doesn't qualify as a major defeat, nor as harassing the enemy all the way to Tripoli. El Agheila is some 650 kms (flying as the crow flies) from Tripoli. So, no, they didn't.

The British also had an issue with Ultra in the pursuit; they had Rommel's messages to Hitler saying that he would fight each holding position, but in reality Rommel fled before a serious assault could be mounted.

The British had good reasons, including logistics and others, to advance at the rate they did. I'm not blaming them or calling them lazy. I'm just stating a fact.
 
1. I agree with others here that "Rommel was Rommel." His actions in 1942 would be unaffected by fears or concerns about what the Allies might do in the Maghreb. In any event, as has been pointed out, TORCH surprised the Germans. So it's not going to impact any German decisions before November.

2. It's also hard to see how Rommel's retreat would be significantly different, driven as it was by the speed and intensity of Montgomery's pursuit. That seems unlikely to change here.

3. As Rommel retreats into Tripolitania and it becomes clear that he is not in position to mount a stand there, something will have to give in regards to French North Africa. Tunisia, at least, could be more readily sent reinforcements, and most likely Hitler browbeats Petain into allowing a "temporary" hosting of German and Italian forces in Tunisia (with a main defense line at Mareth), and perhaps even eastern Algeria. If he refuses, it is hinted that Vichy France will be occupied. Petain would likely give way, but try to limit it to Tunisia - unless the Allies are trying to put Vichy in play, perhaps. But the OP does not raise that possibility.

4. The problem with removing TORCH is that it raises the question of what the Allies do instead. If "Germany First" is still the order of the day then they must do *something,* or the Americans will take their ball and go to the Pacific. Montgomery's lumbering chase through Libya won't count. Stalin will be screaming bloody murder. So it pretty much has to be ROUNDUP in mid-1943.
 
FDR wanted American forces in action in 1942 in Europe or Africa that was one of the reasons torch was launched in the first place. The only other plan I saw mentioned is the sending of an armored Division to the middle east and that was rejected by Marshall.
 
FDR wanted American forces in action in 1942 in Europe or Africa that was one of the reasons torch was launched in the first place. The only other plan I saw mentioned is the sending of an armored Division to the middle east and that was rejected by Marshall.

Absolutely.

I think a possible, plausible POD here is that someone - Marshall? - convinces FDR that TORCH, or any Mediterranean invasion means there can be no Cross-Channel attack in 1943. If that is true, I *could* see FDR refusing TORCH, and insisting that ROUNDUP go forward in 1943, come hell or high water.
 
I've had a look at the order of battle for the US Navy during Operation Torch from the copy of the War At Sea on Hyperwar. It included the Ranger, the 4 Sangamon class CVE, the new BB Massachusetts, the old battleships New York and Texas, 7 cruisers and 38 destroyers.

If there is no Operation Torch is the whole force transferred to the Pacific?
 
Last edited:
I read some veiw that as Marshall's preferred idea in the first place Athelstane. If I remember correctly the Ranger was not considered useful in the Pacific.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If that is true, I *could* see FDR refusing TORCH, and insisting that ROUNDUP go forward in 1943, come hell or high water.
Oh god, that could end badly.


Or, on the other hand, well. Depends if there's any German heavy units in France when they make the crossing.
 
I have tried to work out the non-US warships involved in Operation Torch. The source is Appendix H of Volume II of the War at Sea on Hyperwar. I have not included the Algiers and Oran inshore landing groups because they were partially formed the Centre and Eastern Naval Task Forces and I did not want to count any ships twice.

12 Submarines
4 aircraft carriers (Argus, Formidable, Furious and Victorious)
3 escort carriers (Avenger, Biter and Dasher)
3 capital ships (Duke of York, Rodney and Renown)
10 cruisers (Argonaut, Aurora, Bermuda, Charybdis, Cumberland, Jamaica, Norfolk, Scylla, Sheffield and Sirius)
51 destroyers

22 cutters and sloops
25 corvettes
17 minsweepers
42 trawlers
5 A.A. ships
43 motor launches
32 motor minesweepers
1 monitor

2 headquarters ships
8 landing ships infantry
3 landing ships gantry
3 landing ships tank
6 landing craft tank

20 tankers
23 merchant vessels
11 others
 
With regard to ships, if (and nobody seems to me to have suggested that the British would plausibly try anything else which they weren't doing already in 1942, if Torch is not happening) the British aren't doing anything new in 1942, I suppose Stalin would want convoys through the Arctic resumed.
(With the caveat of any 'buildup' for something in 1943 permitting.)
 
FDR wanted American forces in action in 1942 in Europe or Africa that was one of the reasons torch was launched in the first place. The only other plan I saw mentioned is the sending of an armored Division to the middle east and that was rejected by Marshall.
That could be interesting, but the British government might insist that the American armoured division, given it is the only one in the theater uses British equipment, and is placed under British command, so they don't further confuse the supply chain. I don't know if the Americans would agree to that.
 
I read some veiw that as Marshall's preferred idea in the first place Athelstane.

It was.

Marshall had been pushing ROUNDUP. Churchill countered with TORCH. Marshall responded, effectively, "if this is their attitude, let's just shift assets to the Pacific." FDR ended up resolving the dispute by siding with Churchill.

In this scenario, we're effectively seeing FDR side with Marshall, and force Churchill into a spring 1943 cross-Channel invasion.

If I remember correctly the Ranger was not considered useful in the Pacific.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. It was slower than the Lexingtons and Yorktowns; but had the need been there (more carrier losses), King would have found a use for it in the Pacific. (She had served in the Pacific for four years before the war, after all.)
 
With regard to ships, if (and nobody seems to me to have suggested that the British would plausibly try anything else which they weren't doing already in 1942, if Torch is not happening) the British aren't doing anything new in 1942, I suppose Stalin would want convoys through the Arctic resumed. (With the caveat of any 'buildup' for something in 1943 permitting.)
An earlier resumption of Arctic convoys is more likely than what I suggested.

However, after the initial Torch landings cargo was unloaded at the main ports and then sent by LST to the front. With no Torch the LSTs might be used to take supplies from Alexandria to the 8th Army.
 
That could be interesting, but the British government might insist that the American armoured division, given it is the only one in the theater uses British equipment, and is placed under British command, so they don't further confuse the supply chain. I don't know if the Americans would agree to that.

No; it will have some of the 300 Sherman's being shipped to Egypt.;)
 
No; it will have some of the 300 Sherman's being shipped to Egypt.;)
Well, yes, but I was thinking more of small arms, rations and other minor things, bit like the plans for the Commonwealth Corps in the invasion of the Japan.
 
That could be interesting, but the British government might insist that the American armoured division, given it is the only one in the theater uses British equipment, and is placed under British command, so they don't further confuse the supply chain. I don't know if the Americans would agree to that.

Eighth Army was using lots of American equipment, including M3 Grant tanks, M3 "Honey" light tanks, and Jeeps.
 
Well, yes, but I was thinking more of small arms, rations and other minor things, bit like the plans for the Commonwealth Corps in the invasion of the Japan.

OK, but the deployment was an emergency one; it doesn't make much sense to have to completely retrain the armoured division on small arms etc, and anyway what would they do with the tea ration?:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top