Torch in Sardinia & Corsica, instead of N Africa

Do us all a favor and simply stop posting. The constant barrage of stupid is painful.

How does "Monty" prevent "many WM divs to redeploy to Normandy over weeks"?

Please detail the forces Lucas had, the time and space he had to deal with, and the German reaction.

No, one of the eight divisions of the French Army of North Africa was in Casablanca. One of eight is one-eighth, which is a number somewhat less than one-half. If it was over one-half it could qualify as "the bulk".

 

You go out of your way to misunderstand.
I am obviously talking about the bulk of the 4 French divs in Morocco (noy in Vichy or Algeria or Dakar), which was in Casablanca when it surrendered. Otherwise Patton would have had to fight it. Where do you think the bulk of the army was at the time of surrender, defending the Atlas mountains?

Monty prevents many WM divisions from arriving near the coast by advancing rapidly to Caen on the first day, instead of stopping for tea, etc, and by planting his thousands of mines, AT, field and AAA guns in the hedgerows (before the Germans arrive and do it to the idiot). Also by using the huge naval artillery and 14,000 planes to prevent any movements during the day. Nobody has ever have so much firepower, mobility, logistics, supply stores at his disposal in history and he could not have used them more incompetently.

 

No, you go out of your way to evade and obfuscate.

There were four divisions in French Morocco. One was in Casablanca - the Casablanca Division. The other three in French Morocco were at Fez, Meknes and Marrakesh. None of those three were in Vichy, Algeria, or Dakar, they were in French Morocco, but 115 miles or more away from Casablanca.

One in four is till not "the bulk".

 

Gomer...If you were not functionally illiterate, you would know that Truscott had the USS Texas and USS Savannah for heavy duty fire support.

Mostly this was done by the floatplanes flying of the warships, and wass done as a field expedient.

Think about it...An OS2U Kingfisher could carry 2 x 100 pound bombs or 2 x 325 pound depth charges. The AN Mk 17 depth charge, a 325 lb (147 kg) weapon has an explosive charge of 234 lb (106 kg) of TNT, as opposed to the 54 pound explosive charge of a 100 pound bomb.

It is hard to understand why you would want to use the weaker bomb, instead of the heavier depth charge. IIRC, the depth charge "bombs" worked reasonably well at Guadalcanal.

This also points out the fact that the air power you are planning to use on the Med islands may not be all that adequate.

Gomer...They did!

If you had bothered to do even the slightest bit of research you would have come across.

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-MTO-NWA/USA-MTO-NWA-8.html

17 of 77 P-40s were damaged, and one disappeared...What? You didn't know this?

I presume that you do know something about this battle other than what the Hysterical/Mythical Channel and Wonkypedia tell you.

Oh...Wait...I forgot who I was talking to.

 

Whatever floats your boat...If this means that you stop these posts that are insults to our intelligence, well then, by all means, have at it.

However, I will keep posting as I see fit. Your response or lack there of does not matter to me.

Monty's not here though is he. This is a tangent. You are losing.

There were some 56 German divisions in France...Monty soaked up all of them? Really?

But Lucas is not here though is he. This is another tangent. You are losing badly.

He had the same initial troop numbers as Patton did, yet when Lucas tried to breakout his number had doubled, and when the successful Anzio breakout was made the number of Allied troops had more than quadrupled.

If the French can reinforce their troops...So can the Allies...As you have so rightly pointed out at Anzio.

I'm so sorry, but what was your numbers argument again?

Proof please...Or is this more Hysterical/Mythical/Wonkypedia nonsense.

Let's see if you have finally done your first bit of research...

 

I mentioned Savannah, but her 6" guns are not enough for a fort. Truscott was an idiot not to use Texas.

It is asinine to call examples tangents.

Sure, and if Lucas had waited even longer to gather a stronger force, Berlin would have fallen any way.

The point is that Lucas and Monty wasted the advantage by not advancing immediately and the idiot who planned Patton's landing sent an exceedingly small force to a strongly defended area, instead of concentrating all of Torch and sending it to weak Sardinia and Corsica.

I cannot imagine the amateur planners' justification for using three landing areas, one on the Atlantic and as far as possible from Tunisia, Italy or Germany after Dakar, Madagascar and Syria, instead of landing Patton in the easternmost beachhead and advancing rapidly to Tunisia or better yet landing only in Majorca, Sardinia and Corsica. Morocco was as irrelevant and useless as Madagascar.

Oh, I forgot, you're wasted time.

 

Savannah silenced both 138mm guns at Battery Ponsot by the morning of 9 November.

No, its asinine to pass off tangents as examples.

You still haven't demonstrated you know squat about either of your two latest tangents.

You imagine yourself a professional, when you don't even rate as an amateur, while you denigrate professionals as amateurs. Whcih is yet another interesting tangent on your part.

Yes, you did forget, you are wasted time and space.

 

BTW, the "Stuart's shell extractors failed repeatedly during the skirmish" is yet another made up Mythtry Channel response. They had nothing to do with the events.

 

Obnoxious smartass, as already explained, Patton's force encountered a BB, a CL, coastal artillery, etc, therefore, Massachussets, etc, were not available for Truscott, who was quite far to the north. Truscott did have Texas, and he was quite stupid not to use her to blast away the fort on the first day, instead of wasting days, infantry, 105 mm shells, etc, and exposing Dallas..

 

To illustrate how absurd it was wasting a large force invading Morocco and Algeria and how lucky the Allies were:
Assume that the heavy shells which splashed Patton with yellow die hit Augusta and kill Patton, Ranger takes 2 torpedoes, Massachussets and Dallas take several shells. Also assume that the French tanks attack Truscott at night, kill a large number of men (including Truscott). French mines, subs and naval and coastal guns detroy more allied ships in Algeria. The French are emboldened and refuse to capitulate. Allied forces sustain heavy casualties in Casablanca, Oran, etc, and have to be withdrawn, as in Dieppe. All that, fighting gratuitously a neutral for useless territory, while weak Sardinia, Tunisia and Sicily are reinforced for months and the Italians occupy and reinforce Corsica, Nice, etc, and the Germans occupy and reinforce the rest of Vichy, forcing the scuttling of a large number of warships.

 

No dipshit, as already explained, Jean Bart was stationary and silenced aver five salvoes. With a single main gun turret operational she was a minimal threat. Primaguet and the ten DD were a threat, marginally, to the two heavy cruisers and four DD of the covering group while Massachusetts was occupied for the seven-odd minutes dealing with Jean Bart.

Note what the Massachusetts, the two CA, and the four DD were. The COVERING GROUP. They were there to deal with the French naval reaction and not as a bombardment force. That was the role of the FIRE SUPPORT GROUPS, which were part of the landing task forces. Texas and New York were not initially granted permission to fire for two reasons. One, the ARMY insisted on attempting surprise wit the landing, so withheld the fire of the support groups. Truscott acquiesced to that decision. Two, given the hope was the French would surrender without a fight, it was thought the destructive effects of the big guns should be limited. The result was the Texas and New York were not granted permission to fire - and thus Truscott COULD NOT USE THEM - until afternoon on 8 November.

BTW, when did ONE DAY become "days"? Savannah silenced both 138mm guns at Battery Ponsot by the morning of 9 November. The other guns not already silenced when Dallas approached on the morning of 10 November, were silenced by Dallas herself, Roe, Livermore, Kearny, and Savannah.

Meanwhile, Dallas suffered ZERO casualties and was hit by a total of five fragments, which did not damage, during the action.

 

Why would you assume such made up random events, which did not happen, would happen? And why if you assume they could have happened off French North Africa, do you also assume they could not happen off Sardinia?

You represent an unholy convergence of a lack of basic knowledge, an unwillingness to do real research, a complete inability to think rationally and logically, and a pathological belief in your hare-brained schemes.

 

Boy, you're obtuse, nobody suggested using Texas before the landing. I said that Truscott was stupid not to use her formidable guns to blast away the Kasbah on the first day (like Savannah's guns were used to repell the tanks). The Kasbah held for days, caused many casualties, could have damaged Dallas and it prevented immediate use of the captured airfield, until it was finally bombed and fell. As I said, you go out of your way to misunderstand and misrepresent what I write. I always talked about the fort (the Kasbah, which absurdly held for days, while infantry and 105 mm guns attacked it), somehow you understood that as the 138 mm battery. Chill out, pull out the pickle, breathe deeply and try to understand before you start insulting.
Dallas was barely missed and did not silence any guns (she could not see the French guns and had small guns). A French 75 mm gun firing indirectly was wiped out by a depth charge dropped by a plane.

 

Still going with Wiki and the Mythtry Channel I see. You've become the poster child for obtuseness.

Batterie Henri Ponsot was the modern two-gun 138.6mm M1923 battery defending the approaches to the Sebou River. It and its elderly partner, the four-gun 138.6mm M1881 battery (which was unmanned, but still was heavily shelled by the navy), were atop the 60-foot high ridge running south from the river about 500 yards to the lighthouse. They were protected by a system of trenches and machine gun emplacements, four 75mm AA and two 37mm AA guns. Covering the boom on the river were two fixed 75mm guns, while SW of the airport there was a fixed battery of four 155mm GPF guns, and the rest of the antiaircraft battalion (128e DCA) with 8 more 75mm AA guns. Infantry forces consisted of the 1e Battalion, 1e Regiment Tiralleuers Morrocains, reinforced by the 7e Compagnies, which defended the fortress itself, four 75mm guns of a Foreign Legion battery, engineers, and supporting units, which were disposed at the airfield.

THAT WAS THE KASBAH FORTRESS YOU NITWIT.

It "held for many days"? The Kasbah was secured by the 2d Battalion, 60th Infantry at 1050 on 10 November. The attack had begun two days earlier.

Total casualties to the 60th Infantry Task Force was about 250. A daily rate of about 0.9%, which is relatively low intensity for a force that size.

Dallas was not missed at all. Five fragments hit, remember? Anyway, after entering the river she had to move slowly and even so ran aground a number of times. At 0650 she was fired on by a machine gun, which her 3" and 20mm silenced. She also accidentally struck and destroyed one of the 25mm AT guns engaging C Company 70th Tank Battalion. She was later engaged by the two 75mm at the boom, which were silenced by the DD supporting her and the depth charge dropped by the SOC.

Btw, the 3" guns of Dallas? They were 76.2mm so were not "small" in comparison to the French 75mm guns firing at her. They were larger. So stuff your pickle.

 

Please go to

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Port_Lyautey_during_ww2.jpg

Amplify the lower right corner of the map, so you can clearly see that the coastal batteries lay outside the Kasbah, which repelled repeated attacks and cost many casualties. You can also see a picture of the fort on the page battle of Port Lyautay, where the map orignated. The heavy guns of Texas would have caused rapid surrender after a few rounds fired say at 0900 Nov 8, 1942. The rapid fall of the Kasbah would have induced the airport, the field guns, etc, to surrender, the French would have recalled the tanks after the whole area was occupied by the Americans, Truscott would have been able to join Patton much sooner, the P-40s would have landed and Chenango left earlier.

Again, chill out, you'll realize that discussing beats insulting me every time you post.

Comparing the guns of a destroyer to field guns makes little sense. 3" guns were even in the oudated Lee tank. Even U-boats had 88 mm guns. Most destroyers had 4" to 5" guns, which are much better counter battery. A small shell has to strike very close to the gun it is trying to silence and cannot see, a larger shell is more likely to silence a gun. It doesn't have to strike so close to the gun.

 

Right. The "Kasbah", built by the Portuguese 400 years previously, is the "fortress" and the coast batteries, boom and covering battery, and airfield are irrelevant.

So how many rounds are the few Texas has to fire at 0900? And why would they induce a sudden surrender?

Oh, wait, no you'll go off on a tangent about how the New Jersey fired 16" rounds at Vietnam instead of answering.

Why does "comparing the guns of a destroyer to field guns makes little sense" when the guns of Dallas were actually 1.2 millimeters bigger than the field guns being fired at it? Nor did the Medium Tank M3 have a "3" gun", it was a 75mm. And what does a U-Boote have to do with anything?

Meanwhile, please enlighten us regarding your vast knowledge of terminal ballistics.

 

A destroyer is a heavy, expensive piece of equipment with a large crew, which can easily carry and justify more useful guns and shells than cheap 3" (barely adequate for cheap field guns, tank destroyers and medium tanks, completely inaquate to fight other DD, planes, fortified positions, etc,). Hell even cheap American SP guns had 105 mm or 5" guns. An expensive DD (even a WW I 4-stacker) deserves at least as much. The 8 RN DD shelling Dieppe had 4" guns (inadequate against a fortified port). The RN did not send at least Tribal class DD with 4.7" guns or ideally a BB and several cruisers.

280+ men holed up in a small fortress receiving 14" salvoes and sustaining casualties while the walls blow up (allowing infantry in) and without possibility of shooting back at the ship or surviving even an hour will cause the French troops to surrender even more readily than they did after taking bombs from planes (at which they could at least shoot), discouraging the exposed troops, 75 mm gun crews, etc, outside the fort. Just the sound and sight of a 14" salvo in the air and on impact has a huge psychological impact, even more powerful than Stuka's.
The holed up men are certainly much more likely to surrender quickly than being attacked by infantry (which they can mow down) or 105 mm shells.

It is interesting to compare the excellent naval support for the 3 unimportant landings in Morocco against neutral forces to the ridiculous support in Dieppe, against the Germans which had trounced the British army for years. Too nad all that might was not used in Sardinia and Corsica.

I can imagine the shock of the Spanish commander in Majorca, when several of the BB, cruisers, DD, troop transports, LC, etc, en route to Corsica and Sardinia show up at 2300 Nov 7 and demand immediate surrender to avoid shelling. And then again in Corsica early on Nov 8.

 

Dear Lord, I suppose I just have to feel sorry for you for your complete lack of understanding.

Dallas was a Wilkes-class DD built in large quantities for the Great War and then mothballed for 20 years.In World War II they were converted to destroyer transports, transferred to the British, and used for many other roles. It was intended to useit for the coup de main up the Sebou, preciesley because it was no longer an "expensive piece of equipment" and it had a small crew, around 169 IIRC. But her 3" guns were still potent enough to take out machine guns and support the landing of her troops.

She was no loner expensive, she was long bought and paid for. It was an economical use of existing equipment, which is something you keep ignorantly nattering on about.

It wasn't so much the troops in the Kasbah that was a problem for 2-60. It was the American infantry's lack of experience and the rest of the French battalion outside the fortress attacking to get back in. They retook the Ponsot Battery at one point and nearly isolated the 2-60, which had in turn isolated the Kasbah defnders, In essence, the encircled had encircled the encirclers, a la Vercingtorix.

You still have no clue I see as to what the restrictions for the use of the Texas was. As an old wargamer myself I have found it fascinating how many wargamers lose sight of the real world, which is a mighty powerful place.

It is? Why? Dieppe was intended as a raid. Smash and grab. North Africa was an entirely different proposition. You have a peculiar inability to recognize real-world limitations.

You simply have no clue what the real world limitations, military and political were, and no amount of evidence will change your hare-brained mind. It must be interesting to live in a perpetual fantasy world of your own creation.

I can better imagine the shock of the CCS if any Allied commander at that point proved to be stupid enough to directly provoke Spanish entry into the war.

Your stupidity is almost admirable in its totality.

 

Almost ?

 

I see the idiocy is still raging...

The Savannah's fifteen 6-inch guns were more than enough to reduce the fort to rubble, had they been permitted to fire long on the for for any credible amount of time. However, there were plenty of other calls for her firepower, and these calls had to be met. As such, the Savannah never fired her guns at any one target for any extended period of time. For instance, the guns of the Savannah silenced the guns around Fort Kasba several times that first day, and the French crews remanned the guns after the Savannah's fire had lifted and switched to another target.

As Rich has succinctly put it, "No, its asinine to pass off tangents as examples."

These are tangent's...How are the planners of Operation Torch to derive any "lessons learned" from Operations that have not yet taken place yet.

Or do you now have the Allies perfecting and building the world's first Mark I Crystal Ball?

Regretfully you are in error...Your two "cough" "examples" "cough" did not yet take place, and could offer the planners any lessons from the conduct of those operations.

Further, Morocco was far from being "heavily defended", and the instances you cite for the beaches being "heavily defended" fall increasingly flat.

Finally, if Morocco's beaches were "heavily defended", then how do you explain the relative ease with which it fell, and the relatively few casualties suffered by the Allies, as opposed to the relatively heavy casualties suffered by the French. These are not indicative of Morocco being heavily defended...Not at all.

You do not understand the justifications, because you do not understand militarily important concepts such as strategy, tactics, logistics. Nor do you grasp, the various important reasons behind why the Allies wanted to occupy French North Africa instead of driving directly into the hornet's nest of Corsica and Sardinia. Finally, you do not grasp the ease with which Germany can move forces to counter your asinine invasions of Sardinia, Corsica, and Toulon, and the moronic invasion of Majorca. Nor do you fully grasp how green the Americans really were...

So, yes, reality is well beyond your ken.

I'm not the one proclaiming himself to be smarter than all of the military leaders in World War II, and then epically failing in a vain attempt to prove it.

Now that is wasting time...