What if? Roosevelt ignores Churchill and heeds his generals, no invasion of French Africa.

Minor quibble, but USS Texas had 10x14 inch main guns, not 12 inch guns. Here in Texas size does matter!

 

Ummm....you do know that the 5"/38 had a slightly faster MV than the Tiger I'd 88/L56?

Unless, you are now unequivocally stating that the Tiger I mounted a howitzer as it's main gun.

Or are you simply rewriting the dictionary?

 

The stupid is strong with this one...

Howitzer - ˈhaʊ.ɪtsər - a short gun for firing shells on high trajectories at low velocities. At least that is the dictionary definition. Various military over the centuries have variously defined what constitutes "Short", "High trajectories", and "low velocities". For the U.S. military that is:

1. A cannon that combines certain characteristics of guns and mortars. The howitzer delivers projectiles with medium velocities, either by low or high trajectories.
2. Normally a cannon with a tube length of 20 to 30 calibers; however, the tube length can exceed 30 calibers and still be considered a howitzer when the high angle fire zoning solution permits range overlap between charges.

For a gun the definition is subtly different, as is the pronunciation - ɡən:

1. A cannon with relatively long barrel, operating with relatively low angle of fire, and having a high muzzle velocity.
2. A cannon with tube length 30 calibers or more.

Note by the way they are both "cannons".

The U.S. Navy nomenclature for the 5"/38 is GUN. Its tube length is 38 calibers. And the reason for it is well stated in the Navy manual for it (NAVPERS 10111). It was designed to meet the "requirements of elevating ability, long range, and rapid fire". Its muzzle velocity was between 2,500 and 2,600 F.P.S. (762-792 M.P.S.) depending on age of the gun. Its maximum range was 17,575 yards (16,070 meters).

A comparable howitzer, say the Soviet 122mm M30, had a tube length of 23 calibers. Its muzzle velocity was 1,690 F.P.S. (515 M.P.S.) and its range was 12,817 yards (11,720 meters).
not only to they sound different they are different.
Try again to sound it out...ˈhaʊ.ɪtsər and ɡən...

That became obvious from your first post.

Again that became abundantly obvious from your first post.

Bye! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

This goes back to a question I have posed before... At the time of Operation Torch, was the United States fully mobilized with the proper equipment and do they have enough battle-ready men to attack mainland Europe? The Sherman tank was just put into action in the Second Battle of El Alamein. America would have been armed with mostly Grants and Shermans, and those lousy M3 TD half-tracks. The M10s didn't appear until later in the North African Campaign. With aircraft, the US had solid heavy and medium bombers, but they would have relied on the P40, P39, P38, as the P47 wasn't in its better performing periods until mid/late 1943. If it's air cover closer to the landing areas, the P-series American planes were rugged and could take a beating, but they wouldn't have been able to protect bombers at high altitude as its well known that those planes didn't have the proper turbo-superchargers for high altitude. Also, most of the Navy was in the Pacific in late 1942. Could we have provided a few escort carriers with Wildcats? Again, a tough, rugged plane but needs the right tactics to compete with better planes the Europeans had at the time.

Regardless, the Mediterranean theater did take pressure off of the Soviets, albeit not as much as a mainland invasion of France, but the Western Allies weren't properly prepared to take that task on in late 1942. Between ground fighting in North Africa/Sicily/Italy, the air offensive, and the battle at sea, along with L-L, the Allies were doing what they could with what they had.

It was Hitler's plan all along to fight the war against Russia to destroy Bolshevism, Slavs, Jews, etc. and colonize the land with Germans and loot it's resources. Hilter decided to fight the ideological war, and both Russia and Germany had built up large land forces and materiel prior to Barbarossa. The USA was a continent away and was not on a total war-footing at the time of Torch.