They need to control at least one side of the Strait of Sicily, but it doesn't have to be the African side.
There's also the possibility of taking Sardinia.
Last edited:
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
There's also the possibility of taking Sardinia.
Derek Pullem
Donor
As an Alt-Torch, taking Sardinia (and possibly Corsica) would not be a bad idea. There was a big Italian garrison there but only about 50% of the Sicilian one. Air cover would be an issue and it would probably require more carriers to be committed than for Torch (and/or more softening up before hand).
The Allies invading Corsica as well would not tip Weygand hand (not his responsibility) but would further isolate French North Africa to the point where his eventual switch would be a "no risk" option.
Would be a much harder fight for the Americans than Torch (but similar to Tunisia) so the "live fire" argument is satisfied.
For the British, sure. For the Americans - what are they shipping that needs an SLOC through the Med? The war in North Africa is over, the 8th Army is sitting around in garrisons waiting to be redeployed. Burma/Malaya/East Indies are a British problem, for the other half of the Pacific, the supplies go West from California. And even from the British PoV, the Cape route is much less of an issue if you're going to Australia, Java or even Rangoon than it is if you're going to Alexandria or Bombay.
And taking French North Africa doesn't open the Med. To open the Med you need to clear the Straight of Sicily, which means neutralising the Axis air & sea bases in Sicily. If all you hold is FNA, you're setting yourself up for a Pedestal-scale fight every time you try to put a convoy through the Straights and regular transport without major fleet support is impossible. And to neutralise Sicily is extremely difficult (BoB flashbacks) without occupying the place, which means a major invasion and a land campaign. Are the US really going to commit to a major campaign against the French, so they can launch a major campaign against the Italians, just so the British can get to India faster?
True, but is that an argument for taking FNA/Sicily or for winding down operations in the Med? Churchill no doubt will be filled with ideas about the Balkans and the "soft underbelly"; the US may be less keen.
The largest source of oil and especially refined fuels is the US - any stocks in the UK will mostly come from there.
Why? The Allies would be happy to sail convoys along the coast of a neutral Morocco/Algeria. If the Luftwaffe or RM were using bases there it would be different, but currently they aren't. The logistical roadblock is further east and the big problem is Sicily.
The problem is that they need the Axis not to control either side, and getting to Sicily is a problem if they don't hold Tunisia.
OTL, before invading Sicily, the Allies had control of Tunisia, a large and somewhat battle-hardened army already in Tunisia and indications that Italian support for the Axis was wavering. TTL, at the current time, none of these apply.
Sure, but why? It has no major port, poor infrastructure, it's on the road to nowhere and getting there requires a voyage of hundreds of miles through waters subject to enemy airpower. Grabbing islands for the sake of grabbing islands was what led to the OTL fiasco in the Dodecanese.
How about sending Lend-Lease to the USSR via Iran ? Also not caring about your allies logistics is very stupid, unless of course you want to do more of the dying ( if they cannot supply and therefore cannot do as much, you end up carrying more of the load )
Taking Sardinia after taking Sicily gives additional airbases capable of reaching further north into Italy, while also increasing protection for convoys.
Shipping capacity is shipping capacity. If the British are going to ship stuff to the East Indies, and they are, there is a vital US interest in their doing it efficiently, because that frees up ships to do things the US does care about. All those ton-miles saved by opening the Med go directly into feeding Overlord.
Derek Pullem
Donor
....and vice versa?
Cagliari is not a small port. La Maddalena was a reasonably large Italian base in the north of the island. Italian airbases on Sardinia were extensive.
Not really you can stick fairly closer inside Libyan waters once you get past French North Africa that brings you insides the Allied Air and sea protection.
Taking French North Africa extends the envelope reducing the risk to allied convoys in the region.
Need to move the units and the shipping freed up to get them there. Moving Army is going to be hard with what your proposing. You can't just say do it and expect it to be done quickly or cheaply in terms of logistics or shipping.
TBF it can be pretty dangerous going around the Cape you need a really good watch in place as well as decent charts of that area on top of everything else to say nothing of keeping abrest of the weather reports. Sailing that stretch isn't easy even with modern weather Sat's.
Suez is easier in a lot of ways than the horn also still need to run convoys down that way for a stretch taking away from the RNs escorts.
Remember that the German and Italians cannot push resources into the Indian Ocean unless they round Africa going through the Atlantic. No German U Boat is going to sneak through the Suez Canal to get to the Indian Ocean, and they had problems getting their U boats into the Med and the Italians getting their submarines out of the Med by Gibraltar when only the UK side was in allied hands and the Vichy French had North Africa. The more you are able to get through the Med the less has to be used on the other side east of Suez to escort them to the Far East/South Asia/Australia etc etc,
They are not running east to west around Cape Horn, they have the Panama Canal for that. This is about going around the Cape of Good Hope past Cape town.
Sure you can; the problem is getting through the constriction NE of Tunisia where Cape Bon forces you to sail within a hundred miles of Sicily. OTL Pedestal took that route in the summer of 1942, it was a fast convoy covered by everything the RN could scrape up (~50 warships for 14 transports) plus land-based air from Malta and it faced a threat from only one side of the straight (there were no Axis forces in Tunisia at the time). Five of the 14 transports made it, and the price included an aircraft carrier and two cruisers. There's no way the Allies can afford a victory like that every time they want to run supplies through the Med, let alone send out the dozens of transports needed for a significant invasion and expect them to go anywhere but Davy Jones.
The only way to open the Med is a major operation to neutralise Sicily, and that starts with occupying Tunisia in order to get the airbases you need to gain air superiority over the Straights. And occupying Tunisia means a de-facto declaration of war on Vichy, with all that implies.
You are correct - I forgot about the trans-Persia route. However the major point stands - sure, opening the Med would be nice, but is it a valuable enough objective to be worth the Allies devoting the majority of their forces to the Mediterranean theatre for the next year or more? The US strategy is "Germany first", and it's already accepted that take out Germany will ultimately require a Second Front in continental Europe, probably via a cross-Channel invasion. Going to Algeria to go to Tunisia to go to Sicily to fight your way up the length of the Italian peninsula looks a very long way round.
IIRC, around this time the OTL the British were talking the US out of plans for a cross-channel invasion in 1942, never mind 1943. It's not at all clear to me that with the Axis already evicted from Africa, the US will want to devote the majority of their available troops, ships and tactical aircraft to operations in a place with no active front, nowhere near Germany. OTL they went to North Africa because the Axis were there, and then had an army and air force in Tunisia to take a swing at a wavering Italy. TTL they have to taken an upfront decision that (a) they're going to treat Vichy as an active Axis ally, (b) that "Germany First" means "Italy First" at least through 1943 and (c) that the Second Front is off the table until at least 1944.
There are a few things to note here.
The first is that at present Britain is the senior partner right now. They have the bigger and more experienced Army, Navy and Air Force. They will have weight so if the British argue for an invasion of Sicily it will carry weight. The second is, as people have pointed out, controlling Sicily opens the Med to the Allies and importantly British shipping. This will benefit the Americans in a number of ways, not only in terms of freeing up shipping for other uses but also improving the British position against the Japanese. It has been pointed out that Sardinia (and possibly Corsica) could be alternatives to Sicily and while I agree to an extent they represent harder amphibious targets and will be harder to take unawares. The landings will either have to go past Sicily (So why not just hit Sicily) or Gibraltar and the Spanish could pass on information that an invasion fleet is coming as it will cause notice.
The second is that we don't know what sort of amphibious capability Britain is looking to build up. The fighting in North Africa ended December 1st 1941 ITTL which is 11 months before Operation Torch took place OTL. As soon as Tripoli fell Britain had to start considering amphibious operations if not sooner, the fighting in North Africa looked pretty foregone for a while before hand and it was only Logistics that slowed things down. If Britain was considering major amphibious landings in late 194 and is building towards it then a fairly substantial capability could well be ready by summer 1942 and that is before you consider any American involvement.
Thirdly we have to consider the other operations that might either be carried out/planned. The Aegean campaign has been mentioned but an Operation Corkscrew type event would also make sense for Eighth army to be planning at this time given Malta is now secure and can interdict the Pelagie Islands as well as Pantelleria. Securing them helps the transit of ships through the Mediterranean as well as providing more security for any Sicilian adventure that you have to expect has been discussed.
Without knowing those thigs it is hard to say what is the correct course of action for the Allies right now. If they are going to have the amphibious capability then it is very hard to argue against Sicily. It properly opens the Mediterranean meaning a significant improvement in shipping capacity for the allies as a whole. It also represents a softer first blooding for the Americans. Yes, we don't know the state of the defences in Sicily but from memory I seem to recall that Germany had basically pulled out of Italy, at least fligerkorps X did and I don't believe Luftflotte 2 ever moved to Italy but am not 100% sure, it may still have happened but not have been mentioned. If the Germans have concentrated more on the Soviets at the expense of Italy then Sicily will be very tempting for the British. Another consideration is that it may be enough to finally push French North Africa into switching sides. Yes it is unlikely but could happen if they feel isolated enough or makes Germany remove Petain.
A final point to remember is that in OTL the Allies launched Torch with 100k men in November 42. Then Nine months later Landed 160k in Sicily in June 43 and 190k (although not all at once) in Italy proper a couple of months later. The possibility still exists ITTL to both consider a major amphibious operation in the Mediterranean in 1942 as well as a cross channel invasion in 1943.
The first is that at present Britain is the senior partner right now. They have the bigger and more experienced Army, Navy and Air Force. They will have weight so if the British argue for an invasion of Sicily it will carry weight. The second is, as people have pointed out, controlling Sicily opens the Med to the Allies and importantly British shipping. This will benefit the Americans in a number of ways, not only in terms of freeing up shipping for other uses but also improving the British position against the Japanese. It has been pointed out that Sardinia (and possibly Corsica) could be alternatives to Sicily and while I agree to an extent they represent harder amphibious targets and will be harder to take unawares. The landings will either have to go past Sicily (So why not just hit Sicily) or Gibraltar and the Spanish could pass on information that an invasion fleet is coming as it will cause notice.
The second is that we don't know what sort of amphibious capability Britain is looking to build up. The fighting in North Africa ended December 1st 1941 ITTL which is 11 months before Operation Torch took place OTL. As soon as Tripoli fell Britain had to start considering amphibious operations if not sooner, the fighting in North Africa looked pretty foregone for a while before hand and it was only Logistics that slowed things down. If Britain was considering major amphibious landings in late 194 and is building towards it then a fairly substantial capability could well be ready by summer 1942 and that is before you consider any American involvement.
Thirdly we have to consider the other operations that might either be carried out/planned. The Aegean campaign has been mentioned but an Operation Corkscrew type event would also make sense for Eighth army to be planning at this time given Malta is now secure and can interdict the Pelagie Islands as well as Pantelleria. Securing them helps the transit of ships through the Mediterranean as well as providing more security for any Sicilian adventure that you have to expect has been discussed.
Without knowing those thigs it is hard to say what is the correct course of action for the Allies right now. If they are going to have the amphibious capability then it is very hard to argue against Sicily. It properly opens the Mediterranean meaning a significant improvement in shipping capacity for the allies as a whole. It also represents a softer first blooding for the Americans. Yes, we don't know the state of the defences in Sicily but from memory I seem to recall that Germany had basically pulled out of Italy, at least fligerkorps X did and I don't believe Luftflotte 2 ever moved to Italy but am not 100% sure, it may still have happened but not have been mentioned. If the Germans have concentrated more on the Soviets at the expense of Italy then Sicily will be very tempting for the British. Another consideration is that it may be enough to finally push French North Africa into switching sides. Yes it is unlikely but could happen if they feel isolated enough or makes Germany remove Petain.
A final point to remember is that in OTL the Allies launched Torch with 100k men in November 42. Then Nine months later Landed 160k in Sicily in June 43 and 190k (although not all at once) in Italy proper a couple of months later. The possibility still exists ITTL to both consider a major amphibious operation in the Mediterranean in 1942 as well as a cross channel invasion in 1943.
The Spanish will know an invasion is coming, but they won't know where it will hit.
Also, Britain is looking to build up its experience from smaller operation to start with, namely, Rhodes.
Last edited:
They will know it is coming and that will put everywhere Axis on alert and give them time to prepare making things harder.
There is plenty of time for smaller operations such as Rhodes etc whilst planning something bigger and incorporating lessons. We are still 8 months away from when Torch took place in OTL. Even bringing TTL's Torch forward 2 months gives 6 months.
IF the attck on the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir took place July 1940 (I cannot find a reference anywhere ITTL) Then Vichy will have attacked Gibraltar
https://afterburner.com.pl/24-september-1940-french-air-raid-on-gibraltar/
so the UK is already at war with Vichy France.
Adding to this it puts a great deal of domestic and poltical pressure on Benny as well he has taken a pounding ITTL on top of this he will be soon losing a few eastern Med islands as well to boot.
DUKE Forces will gain valuable amphibious operation and logistics experience from that.
But the British have to pay for that from their declining amounts of US Dollars or specie instead of getting it from oilfields they control. Economics dictates that they get as much as possible from the Middle East instead of the US.