What if: No Operation Torch in 1942?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if WW2 takes place with Pearl Harbour, and the US and German declarations of war as of late 1941, but there is no Operation Torch in 1942? Maybe the US doesn't want to send troops across the Atlantic until the U-boats have been mastered. Maybe Congress insists that for anything other than a cross-Channel liberation of France, the Pacific theatre and fighting Japan has to take priority. The build up of American air-forces in the UK still happens, but there are no American landings in French North Africa in 1942.
So how do things go without Torch?
Does Hitler pile more troops into North Africa without thousands of Americans streaming across the Atlantic, or does he tell Rommel that he has to make do with what he has?
If the British manage to defeat Rommel, and clear North Africa up to the borders of Tunisia, do they take action against French North Africa on their own, or do they look for another option?
Without American troops in North Africa (and if French North Africa doesn't 'go British'), do the Germans leave the Vichy regime largely intact in France?
Would an Anglo-Russian Operation Jupiter be possibly on the cards for late 1942/early 1943 (a Norway campaign) if Rommel has been defeated and the UK government feels unable/unwilling with present forces to either go across the Channel or to take on Vichy North Africa?
 

Angrybird

Banned
The British will no doubt reinforce their troops in NA - a third (or half?) of the Torch forces were British anyways.

However without American troops and equipment the Germans can hold on to NA for much longer - possibly up to early 1944.
 
A lot depends on what is proposed as a alternative to Op Torch.

Does Hitler pile more troops into North Africa without thousands of Americans streaming across the Atlantic, or does he tell Rommel that he has to make do with what he has?

Either way the Allies can drive the Axis airforces away & cut off the Axis ports in Africa as they did OTL.

[quote} If the British manage to defeat Rommel, and clear North Africa up to the borders of Tunisia, do they take action against French North Africa on their own, or do they look for another option?
Without American troops in North Africa (and if French North Africa doesn't 'go British'), do the Germans leave the Vichy regime largely intact in France?[/quote]

If the Allies are not going to seize the French African colonies in late 1942 there are fewer reasons to do so in 1943. If the colonical leaders are ready to flip to the Allied side then the Allies will 'assist', but otherwise it is not worth the effort.

Similarly the Germans can ill afford the additional occupation costs of Vichy France. Hitler would occupy Vichy France if he thought they were about to violate their nuetrality, but probablly not before he thought this.

Would an Anglo-Russian Operation Jupiter be possibly on the cards for late 1942/early 1943 (a Norway campaign) if Rommel has been defeated and the UK government feels unable/unwilling with present forces to either go across the Channel or to take on Vichy North Africa?

Norway might be seen as a alternative to more resources into Africa or the Mediterranean in 1943, but it has some disadvantages. If the Axis are defeated in Africa in early 1943, then the Allies may very well attack Italy anyway. Brooke certainly favored that & would have continued arguing for it with Churchills support.
 
Italy?

...Norway might be seen as a alternative to more resources into Africa or the Mediterranean in 1943, but it has some disadvantages. If the Axis are defeated in Africa in early 1943, then the Allies may very well attack Italy anyway. Brooke certainly favored that & would have continued arguing for it with Churchills support.
If Libya is clear but French North Africa is still Vichy is it actually possible for the Allies to invade Italy? It seems to me that it would be difficult to attack Sicily and then advance to mainland Italy itself without Tunisia.
Edit:
For one thing, I would have thought that the Tunisian airfields would be necessary for any advance on Sicily/mainland Italy?
 
Last edited:
Malta would be useful & Panaterla can be captured & used as well. The airfields in Tunisia were useful, but the landing sites at the eastern end of Sicilly could not be supported by fighter planes from Tunisia at the mid 1943 ranges. Most of the heavy bomber raids supporting the Sicilian invasion were flown from the airbases in Algeria, Lybia, or even Egypt.

But, there are alternatives. At the Symbol confrence @ Casablanca in January 1943 capturing Sardinia first was proposed. That island was fairly vulnerable, poorly defended, and outflanked Sicily & southern Italy. for various reasons the Allies went with the Tunisia> Sicily> S Italy> Sardinia sequence, but that was not set in stone. Absent a Allied presence in Tunisia Sardinia could be grabbed in a suprise move.

The Italians kept a weak infantry corps there, even when the threat was high. that was reinforced with local militia. Some torpedo boats were permanently based there and destoyers & cruisers parked there perodically. The air force garrison varied from as low as 90 to 140 aircraft, tho during events like Operation Pedistal it was surged to over 300. A suprise intrusion by a Allied fleet has a fair chance of landing four infantry divisions & shuttling in a fair sized air contingent before the Axis can react. Unlike Tunisia in November 1942 Allied aircraft carriers can support a landing from the eastern Mediterranean without excessive exposure to Axis air forces in Italy or Sicilly.

That is just one alternative. A look at the British 8th Armies execution of it part of Operation Huskey shows that it was primarily embarked in Egypt. the ports of Tunis & Bizerte were demolished by the Axis before surrender & the invasion planners could not count of having them available. In this ATL a Allied army can also be embarked out of Alexandria.

Crete can be seized to help prevent Axis harrasment of Allied naval operations, and as a forward base for operations along the Greek coast. If the Allies choose not to enter into Balkans adventures Crete can still serve as a false front for Allied deception ops threatening the Balkans and Italy.

Bottom line here is Sicily & Tunisia are useful to the Allied cause, but not essential.
 
Mediterranean adventures

Malta would be useful & Panaterla can be captured & used as well. The airfields in Tunisia were useful, but the landing sites at the eastern end of Sicilly could not be supported by fighter planes from Tunisia at the mid 1943 ranges. Most of the heavy bomber raids supporting the Sicilian invasion were flown from the airbases in Algeria, Lybia, or even Egypt.

But, there are alternatives. At the Symbol confrence @ Casablanca in January 1943 capturing Sardinia first was proposed. That island was fairly vulnerable, poorly defended, and outflanked Sicily & southern Italy. for various reasons the Allies went with the Tunisia> Sicily> S Italy> Sardinia sequence, but that was not set in stone. Absent a Allied presence in Tunisia Sardinia could be grabbed in a suprise move.

The Italians kept a weak infantry corps there, even when the threat was high. that was reinforced with local militia. Some torpedo boats were permanently based there and destoyers & cruisers parked there perodically. The air force garrison varied from as low as 90 to 140 aircraft, tho during events like Operation Pedistal it was surged to over 300. A suprise intrusion by a Allied fleet has a fair chance of landing four infantry divisions & shuttling in a fair sized air contingent before the Axis can react. Unlike Tunisia in November 1942 Allied aircraft carriers can support a landing from the eastern Mediterranean without excessive exposure to Axis air forces in Italy or Sicilly.

That is just one alternative. A look at the British 8th Armies execution of it part of Operation Huskey shows that it was primarily embarked in Egypt. the ports of Tunis & Bizerte were demolished by the Axis before surrender & the invasion planners could not count of having them available. In this ATL a Allied army can also be embarked out of Alexandria.

Crete can be seized to help prevent Axis harrasment of Allied naval operations, and as a forward base for operations along the Greek coast. If the Allies choose not to enter into Balkans adventures Crete can still serve as a false front for Allied deception ops threatening the Balkans and Italy.

Bottom line here is Sicily & Tunisia are useful to the Allied cause, but not essential.
Is there enough air-cover to do Pantelleria without Tunisia? Pantelleria itself was an Axis airfield, if I recall correctly, and anything flying from Malta for Pantelleria can also be potentially intercepted by Sicily.
I'm also doubtful over whether an invasion fleet for Sardinia could be done from Egypt, given it could be intercepted/attacked by Sicily and Pantelleria on the way; I think any amphibious landing on Sardinia would have to come from Gibraltar, and would lack fighter-cover of any kind, unless escorted by aircraft carriers.
Hmm. If Libya is cleared but there's been no Torch I could see Churchill maybe wanting another go at Crete, and/or maybe the Dodecanese, in pursuit of trying to get Turkey into the war. (Any Crete operation could be accompanied by a 'reverse' of the original timeline Mincemeat, with a deception operation to make the Germans think that Sicily is the target...)
 
Last edited:
What if WW2 takes place with Pearl Harbour, and the US and German declarations of war as of late 1941, but there is no Operation Torch in 1942?

The Soviet persuit after Stalingrad will be a lot bloodier.

Torch occurred just in time to divert major forces from the Russian Front before the Soviets attacked. A dozen divisions or so to occupy the rest of France, the forces sent to North Africa -250,000 men? - 70% of the Luftwaffe air transport capacity...

All of that is potentially going to still be available. Also if the invasion of Sicily and Italy does not occur than the German forces sent to deal with those will also be available for other uses, probably Russia (where else would they be sent?).

That creates enough butterflies for the rest of the war in the east to not go as OTL. The Red Army will probably still be able to cope, after all they expected to have to OTL. Still, it will be a bloodier mess and whatever lessons were learned about amphibious invasions with army troops in the landing in question will not be availble to help plan D-Day.
 
Why no Torch?

It was the first part of Brooke's strategy to open the Med, saving 10 million tons of cargo per year and preparing for where it did matter: France

If Torch is cancelled because:

1) US goes for Japan and only interested in a Cross-Channel operation (which realistically could not be before 1944 anyway although Marshall pushed for it).

2) Not enough forces

3) Hoping that Monty can roll it up from the East

Then it is a different picture.

Consequences could be:

1) More forces to counter USSR in 1943
2) Italy stays in the war (good or bad?)
3) Check Monty and the Med is not opened up
4) Stalemate in North Africa?

The danger point is that if US forces are not facing the Germans in 1943, they may just pack up and go to Pacific instead. That was Marshall's fear I believe.

If the US is losing interest in Europe, even 1943 can set back UK in the west in a dramatic fashion. they needed the US

Ivan
 
Marshall was advocating the cross-channel invasion to land in 1942, then in 1943. It was British policy Brooke & Churchill - to certainly oppose 1942.

But then if the policy was Germany First - then where were US troops to be used!?
It was FDR who wanted Torch - ideally before the US Elections - though Marshall got 'windy' about German reaction via Spain. Brooke et al had to argue to get landings in the Med!
It was Brooke's strategy to cause Germany to spread out they Armed Forces - leaving less in France.

The bigger the landing equals the better co-operation from the French.

Torch 'blooded' US troops, and commanders, it also showed that US Field Manual FM 31-35 was cancelled - in favour of the British system (of Air Support) that evolved in the Desert.

Marshall's opposition to NW Africa and the dangers of a Med campaign that may delay the Cross-Channel invasion, IMO contributed to the delays in 'what next'. The Med. needed to be under Allied control to save shipping. Shipping, and lots of it was essential for both the build up and the 'Invasion' of France. Planning for Sicily, and the invasion should have happened early and even more so the mainland - would have stopped German evacuation.
 
The 'blooding' of US forces at katherina pass was a hiding, but probably also high-lighted that a new way of doing things would be needed in France.

Without that experience, how would US forces have faired in France initially?

Ivan
 
The 'blooding' of US forces at katherina pass was a hiding, but probably also high-lighted that a new way of doing things would be needed in France.

Without that experience, how would US forces have faired in France initially?

Ivan

Some more men dead before they get the hang of sitting still and waiting for the Artillery and Army Airforce to obliterate whatever was causing the hold up. Horrifingly fantastic amounts of firepower will cover up a hell of a lot of ineptitude.
 
If for some reason we do not do TORCH, at least one and maybe US armored divisions are sent to Egypt to fight with the 8th Army. That option was considered OTL but they decided to just send a fighter group and three bomber groups to Egypt in summer 1942 instead.

FDR was insistent on getting US troops engaged in the ETO before the end of 1942 and it would have happened one way or the other.
 
Rommel was retreating from defensible line to defensible line, having no US/Allied attack from the West would mean he could continue to do this in Tunisia, regardless of the reinforcements the Allies got. It was why he abandoned Tripoli, because he thought the best defensible line was further West.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Vichy-France neutrality

Rommel was retreating from defensible line to defensible line, having no US/Allied attack from the West would mean he could continue to do this in Tunisia, regardless of the reinforcements the Allies got. It was why he abandoned Tripoli, because he thought the best defensible line was further West.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Could Rommel move into Tunisia like that in this timeline? Wouldn't that go against the neutral status of Vichy-France, which hasn't been called into question by the Torch landings.
 
Could Rommel move into Tunisia like that in this timeline? Wouldn't that go against the neutral status of Vichy-France, which hasn't been called into question by the Torch landings.

That in and of itself as an interesting what if? The 8th Army to include a couple of American divisions is pushing Rommel back. The Germans realize Tunisia is more defensible than Western Libya. Do they move troops and aircraft into Tunisia knowing full well that could cause the French North Africa to side with the Allies which in turn allows the Allies to begin moving troops into Morocco and Algeria, not as invaders but as invited Allies?

Sounds like an interesting TL...
 
Hitler

That in and of itself as an interesting what if? The 8th Army to include a couple of American divisions is pushing Rommel back. The Germans realize Tunisia is more defensible than Western Libya. Do they move troops and aircraft into Tunisia knowing full well that could cause the French North Africa to side with the Allies which in turn allows the Allies to begin moving troops into Morocco and Algeria, not as invaders but as invited Allies?

Sounds like an interesting TL...
I'd assume regarding use of Tunisia Rommel would have to defer on decision from Hitler.
As to what Hitler would do, I suppose it would depend on how he views the Vichy French, where he views American priorities to lie at this point, and what any 'instincts' which he has about the situation tell him?
At this stage (if it's late 1942/early 1943) I assume that Hitler's trying to still focus on winning in the east, if the situation permits, and having to occupy Vichy France and shipping troops to Tunisia (as opposed to cutting his losses in North Africa and viewing the Mediterranean as the moat of 'Fortress Europe') is only going to distract from the struggle in Russia.
 
Is there enough air-cover to do Pantelleria without Tunisia? Pantelleria itself was an Axis airfield, if I recall correctly, and anything flying from Malta for Pantelleria can also be potentially intercepted by Sicily.

Depends on what warning the Axis have & what air forces they mass in Sicily.


I'm also doubtful over whether an invasion fleet for Sardinia could be done from Egypt, given it could be intercepted/attacked by Sicily and Pantelleria on the way; I think any amphibious landing on Sardinia would have to come from Gibraltar, and would lack fighter-cover of any kind, unless escorted by aircraft carriers.

I mis addresed the direction:
... Unlike Tunisia in November 1942 Allied aircraft carriers can support a landing from the eastern Mediterranean without excessive exposure to Axis air forces in Italy or Sicilly. ...

That should have read 'western Mediterranean'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top