Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

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

Discussion in 'North Africa: Operation Torch to Surrender of Tuni' started by archytas, Mar 18, 2018.

  1. JJWilson

    JJWilson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    Arizona U.S.A
    This thread went to S*** pretty fast...............good thread with potential.
     
  2. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    It went to S*** from the first post, so yes that is pretty fast. The post displayed ignorance of the way the world then and now works at the level of international relations. It displayed ignorance of the simple facts...the who, what, why, where, when, and how of the period the OP was so glibly opining about. My first reply was flip, but accurate. The Combined Chiefs of Staff contemplated this "strategy" and quickly discarded it. It was not Churchill persuading Roosevelt. It was the consensus of opinion from dozens, if not hundreds of professional Army, Navy, and Air Force officers from both sides of the pond. That is the long and short of it.
     
    JJWilson likes this.
  3. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,181
    Likes Received:
    1,129
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    But but but.... in War Thunder and World of Tanks this is perfectly feasible because I can drive my Sherman onto the beach and kill 9x PzIVs with M93 HVAP before being spotted..... Coupled with air support by the entire 1945-strength USAAF flying P-39s after being trained by a yet-unknown Soviet who has not yet flown the fighter in combat this is a cakewalk... but keep in mind we don't want the stinkin' British involved with their pathetic Beaufighter which was a poor fighter plane (and despite what you say it was a "fighter" because it has "fighter" in its name) because Monty is inept and is too busy peaking at his junior officers through the shower curtains.... etc etc....

    As an aside, I've noticed a remarkably similar pattern in the majority of these ATL posts. They start by not only proposing a departure from the OTL but also including a quasi-monograph of how the ATL unfolds with total disregard for the realities of the original situation (case in point: "Patton captures the southern French ports without resistance and holds them, because he's Patton, and with the help of the fantastic P-39 I like to play in War Thunder"). There is no justification for why the ATL works as a whole; it is taken as gospel that it unfolds as presented and each stage is considered a discrete entity. When dissenting opinions are produced, they are usually rejected outright in a fashion that soon evolves to extensive use of strawman tactics, anecdotal remarks, factoids which are only peripherally connected to ATL, and a focus on obscure/largely irrelevant tactical or technical tidbits such as how fantastic person X was, or how great vehicle Y was. IMHO these posters are not looking for a debate or intellectual discussion, but rather are simply looking for a pat on the back over how fantastic their plan is. I notice that the majority of the more harebrained ATL posters follow the same trajectory which strongly makes me thing they are the product same person.

    I applaud you and the others for taking the time to respond to the OP -- at least I learn something from these nonsensical threads.

    OP: Please do not bother responding to this as I will not be involved in this any further.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    JJWilson and RichTO90 like this.
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    I missed that. Who to send it to and how to get it there would also be very serious questions in this regard. How much you can fly "over the hump" is rather limited.

    Really? The supply lines to the Soviets were already pretty much maxed out and the Soviets aren't really interested in antagonizing the Japanese at that point. Then there's the time it would take for said supplies to reach the Chinese. Kind of looks like more silliness to me.

    Sources pls. Given the characteristics of the cannon removing the mg's sounds like a very bad idea for a fighter.

    ??? Mac and Sardnia????
    Not really. The P-39 wasn't very good at the higher altitudes combat took place in in Western Europe. There was also the issue early on of lack of superchargers for export aircraft. I think the Brits version of the P-38 didn't have the counter rotating props which had some performance impact as well.
    Ignoring a number of serious issues here aren't you? The US was simply unwilling and indeed had no need to sacrafice the number of troops the Soviets did to accomplish that.
    So now you alone posses this remarkable insight. Ego problems or more silliness? Both I'd hazard.
    Excuse me when did Mac end up in Europe and in charge? What P-38 aces?
    First you have to take Sardinia. Then you need to keep it's airfields intact and keep it supplied. Not sure the deployments can be categorized as simple in any case? What route are you going to fly to get the planes there for instance?
    I don't think I'd agree with at least two major points. The P-51 was not "vastly inferior" to the Me-262 indeed in some ways it was significantly superior. On the other hand I'd have a very hard time categorizing their victories over Me-262 as "many" terms like "a few" seem much more appropriate.
    And you are proposing to put the USAAF in a situation where they are facing more numerous opposition without a significant edge of any kind. I.e. More silliness.
     
  5. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    I think in his "ATL" Mac is magically made Chief of Staff in place of Marshall? I don't really read the crap all that closely though, I missed the silliness about Switzerland, so I may be wrong.
     
  6. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    You still haven't told me how you're going to get your medium tanks ashore in southern France without the necessary ships to land them across the beach. The US LST's and LSD's were not yet in commission. You do have the Lakehurst, but that requires you capture the port of Marseille intact. It can carry 250 mediums, but can't land them amphibiously, sooo, you'll have to rely on M3 light tanks to oppose the Germans until you can capture the port. Other freighters can carry mediums, but you have to have the requisite capacity booms/cranes in the port to off load them across the dock. What happens if the sabotage the port?[/QUOTE]

    My mistake, 60 mm it is.
    Regarding tanks:
    1) the French have fewer tanks in the Med coast than in Africa. Panzers will take long hours to arrive and then will face naval guns over 30 km from the coast, as they arrive piecemeal.
    2) OTL medium and light tanks were landed in Africa on the first day (despite strong resistance) and will be landed the same way in France.
    3) Naval gun support (including 16" guns) is far more valuable than tanks (much heavier and much longer range).
    4) As in Morocco, etc, CV planes attack German columns rushing across France,
    5) Unlike Morocco and Algeria, where landings were expected, Nogués had received specific orders to oppose landings with full force and a coup failed to out him just before the landings (prompting Nogués to reinforce the beaches), there are no orders to oppose landings in France (they are not expected, with the Germans controlling the Atlantic).
    6) OTL Monty received all the Shermans and a hellacious amount of artillery (including SP guns) and US forces arrived with some Lees in Africa. ATL Monty receives only Lees and fewer artillery and munitions (no SP guns) and Patton has Shermans, SP guns and Stuarts. In the end Rommel is doomed by the fall of Pantelleria to the British, which shoot down the plane transporting before his generals have to surrender.
    7) The ranger batallion which OTL seized a useless coastal battery in Azew, ATL advances rapidly to the interior to prepare a wellcome for the Panzers with Bazooka, AT guns, etc, since coastal guns, ships, etc, join the allies, so heavy French guns also wellcome the Panzers.
    8) You keep thinking about beaches, where infantry will land near valuable ports (as OTL in Morocco, etc,). I did mention the excellent, undamaged ports in Nice, Marseille, etc, which obviously allow tanks, guns, etc, to be unloaded and the beachhead to be supplied infinitely better than OTL in Normandy, Cherbourg, etc, with demolished ports and very rough, Atlantic conditions.
    OTL Anvil worked like clockwork, despite the Krauts having been there for 18 months and having formidable Panthers, Tigers, Panzerfaust, Panzershreck, Nebelwerfer, etc, in France, ATL the Krauts have to rush into an area with their Pz III, 38 (t), Pz II, very few Pz IV and STUG and a handful of Tigers (which arrive later) and with the Americans waiting for them on land. The LW has to attack against land and naval AAA.
    9) The French resistance and Maquis have received Bazzokas, sub MG, explosives, etc, and orders not to use them and to become active whenever the landings take place, blowing up bridges, tunnels, etc, they are joined by civilians and military alike when the landings take place.
    10) Paratroopers are dropped with Bazookas, etc, near crucial RR and road crossings, airfields, etc, in Vichy to inflict losses on advancing columns and seize airports for US planes.
     
  7. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read the thread,

    Supply routes to the USSR were not maxed out in 1942, when OTL L-L was ridiculous to the USSR. ATL Britain receives half as much L-L as the USSR (a completely different ballpark), but the upped L-L and opening of the 2nd front in France are conditioned on the USSR invading Manchuria and allowing US bombers to operate from the USSR, The increased ATL supplies P-39, Kittyhawks, etc, which are not sent to the British, but to the Soviets prove invaluable in the German front.

    The speed, rate of climb, firepower and even the ejection system of the Me 262 were vastly superior to the P-51. Even the high scoring Experten flying the Me 262 lasted little. The black pilots of the Tuskegee squadron alone shot down several. As stated, the plane had limited endurance and fewer numbers, so several P-51 simply waited until they had to land and shot them down. Even bombers and fighter bombers destroyed many gorunded planes for lack of fuel.


    Sardinia was quite weak in Oct 1942 (much more so than Morocco+Oran+Tunisia and much more useful) it is also much easier to invade in Oct 1942 than SIcily in mid 1943. Axis forces can hardly reinforce or evacuate from Sardinia.

    US planes experienced heavy losses over Germany for lack of escorts and for no territorial gains at all. US planes experienced heavy losses in Africa to acquire useless terrain. Deploying them to open a second front when German industry is weak and forcing the LW to attack againstheavy and land AAA makes a lot more sense.

    It is much easier to ferry planes to Sardinia than to Malta and a thousand times easeir than to Egypt, around S Africa or flying them from Ghana!!
     
  8. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    You don't listen too well, do you? The French Metropolitan forces have NO tanks. Zero, zip, nada. The German forces responding to ANTON OTOH have over 600 of the most current German types, since they were all re-equipping.

    You just don't bother to try to understand do you? Seatrain carried all 54 medium tanks embarked with the task force. They could only be landed on a quay, which means the quay and its port had to be captured first. They weren't ashore at Safi until the evening of 9 November, about 36 hours after the invasion began.

    Not according to the lessons learned from TORCH. One of the major problems with NGFS is that like all artillery it doesn't work without observers. Another problem is its range limitations.

    No, you don't take in information very well, do you? The ONLY thing the aircraft of the task force are likely to be doing is trying to defend it from German and Italian air attacks, which are likely to start at least two days before the task force gets to position off Toulon.

    The landings in France "are not expected"? Really? Does the task force engage a Romulan cloak of invisibility? In reality, the center and eastern task forces movements were detected on 6 and 7 November as they passed through the straits...if heading for Toulon, the Axis has a minimum of three days to track, attack, and prepare for the landing.

    It was 212 M4A1 and 90 M4A2 shipped on 15 July actually, plus another 51 replacements when the Fairport sank, which was essentially all of the production from February through June...but 488 were produced in July and 923 in August, so there were more to go around. The "hellacious amount of artillery (including SP guns)" were125 M7 105mm HMC, all of them were SP.

    "Rommel is doomed by the fall of Pantelleria"? So in addition to Southern France and Sardinia, you're also invading Pantelleria? Oh, and of course bombing Switzerland.

    Darby would love you. They actually did that at Salerno, but then they were defending the Monti Latari...the mountainous Amalfi coast to block the direct route from Naples to Vietri sul Mare. And they did it with three Ranger and two Commando battalions, not with a single battalion. You don't have a convenient single bottleneck to work with. The Italians are moving east to west along the coast and the Germans are advancing Dijon-Lyon-Marseille, Bourges-Montpelier, and from Bordeaux-Toulouse. There are at least four approach routes.

    So one division each...with about 120 miles separating them? Yep, recipe for disaster. Especially given the real life inexperience of the boat crews, which lost nearly half of the landing craft in the operation.

    Twenty-two months actually. The major problem for 19. Armee is that it only had a single Panzer Division, 11., to depend on and it was still rebuilding - it had only been there for two and a half months. It had no Tigers or Nebelwerfers. It's armor strength consisted of just 8 StuG, 6 operational PzIII, and 74 operational PzIV. Its Panthers did not join the division until the end of August when it was covering the withdrawal. It faced three tank battalions, the 1re DB, and five TD battalions, so about 350 medium tanks and 180 GMC, a three-to-one advantage over the Germans. You think its a good idea to pit 600-odd German medium and heavy tanks against 54 American ones, about a ten-to-one advantage. It's madness.

    Only the initial 5,000 Bazookas produced were available. They required considerable training to operate effectively. Shipping them off to poorly organized and motivated partisans is idiocy. In reality, the military capability of what resistance was organized in Vichy was virtually non-existent.

    WHAT "paratroopers"? The 509th PIB was the only American parachute infantry unit available. Look up what it did in North Africa.

    Demented and poorly researched fantasy is a kind assessment of this mess.
     
    lwd likes this.
  9. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    It's hard to without laughing out loud.

    (snip repetitive nonsense)

    So we can get to this gem. Only the Me 262V-1 had an ejector seat. None of the production models used it.

    They shot down three confirmed, mostly thanks to the late war development of the computing lead sight, which did not exist in October 1942. What that has to do with this lunacy is otherwise beyond me.

    It was defended by Fifth Army's XIII Corps and its divisions, 30th at Cagliari, 31st at Sassari, and 44th at Oristano (it occupied Corsica as part of Anton). There were also a large number of coast defense and militia that were consolidated into two coast defense divisions after 8 November 1942. We've already gone over the air defenses. The Italians also had the 20th (Assault Landing) Division at Livorno, ready to move, along with the 47th Division. Then there is 7. Flieger Division in Germany, which could easily move to reinforce Sardinia or occupy Corsica if desired.

    So flying them across France, without escort, in order to land at an airfield that may or may not be in friendly hands, without any logistical support is a way to avoid "heavy losses"? ROTFLMAO

    Okay. WHO is invading Sardinia? So far you have an invasion along the French coast from Marseille to Nice, someone invading Pantelleria, and someone bombing Switzerland. So who takes on Sardinia? You have three divisions you can do an assault landing with...1st, 3d, and 34th ID. Who goes where and with what naval and air support?

    Or are you just going to hand-wave it all away again?
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,719
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    No, my friend, the P-51 is not vastly inferior to the 262...They are dissimilar aircraft. The 262 is an energy fighter and the 51 is an angles fighter.

    Further, fuel was not a problem for the Luftwaffe in 1942. France, 1942, was not Russia, 1942...France had a good transportation net, and the pitiful invading force of the Americans is not the Russian Steamroller.
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  11. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,719
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    The P-38 was not "excellent" until the Js with divebreaks came out...Sometime in the future, but certainly not for this ill-fated invasion.

    The heavy fighter was a misguided concept, put most proved their worth in other areas, of which the Beaufighter excelled in several.

    Britain produced 20,000 Spits to the Mustangs 15,000...Now, how difficult was it?

    The RN was hardly incompetent...Where do you get your history from? Comic Books...The Fleet Air Arm was under the control of the RAF until mid-1939. so all the RN got were RAF hand-me-downs and make do aircraft for their carriers. So, of course, the RN will take USN carrier aircraft, as they don't really have the time to fully develop their own.
     
  12. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    I'm still trying to figure out why Lend-Lease is considered a waste...that kind of thinking is on the level of "let's bomb Switzerland!"
     
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,719
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    L-L is a waste only if is going to Britain..According to the anglophobic OP.

    If L-L is going to the USSR or, and I cannot say this without laughing, China, it is money well spent.

    What did Chaing soak us for to build those bomber bases...100 mill?
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  14. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fuel was not a problem throughout the USSR owing to poor transportation networks in 1942, it was scarce because Ploesti was bombed, synthetic fuel production was still increasing, reserves were dwindling rapidly with massive use (tanks and planes moving back and forth between Sevastopol, the Caucasus, Stalingrad, etc, heavy losses to partisan activity (which the French resistance will also carry out thhroughout the so called excellent RR network), air lifting supplies for Damyansk, Stalingrad, etc, consumed a lot of fuel and planes full of fuel, the Italian army, navy and air force had practically no reserves (the small production of low quality fuel from Albania was earmarked for the air force and did not suffice nor produce optimal performance), so Germany had to supply its ally (if it wanted the Italian navy to function and cargo ships to deliver fuel in Libya for Rommel and the LW , although most tankers were lost, reducing available fuel,). Rommel had to use up Kesselring's small fuel reserve to reach el Alamein, flown at great fuel expense by Ju 52 from Sicily to Libya, so both the LW and the WM had little fuel also in Libya.

    Fuel was a problem for the LW and WM for most of WW II, reducing missions. Hitler originally planned to seize the Caucasus to ensure oil supplies, but then stupidly divided the force, sending most to Stalingrad, so that tanks and planes had to take turns supporting advance on both distant fronts (dooming both) and wasting fuel, time in combat and wear.

    OTL while the allies farted around in N Africa (including Morocco, where Patton's force wasted long months!), Hitler was free to up slowly up production and accumulate Panzer, planes, etc, in Sicily, Italy, Yugoslavia and France. OTL Kasserine pass took place far from coastal guns and the commanding officer (Fridendahl).
    ATL Germany is losing men, planes, tanks, trucks, cannon and consuming munitions, fuel, etc, very fast, so not only does he not accumulate tanks, but they dwindle in the west and more ressources have to be redeployed from the east, dooming the east front to rapid collapse. T
    ATL the more primitive Panzers in Oct 1942 are attacking against naval guns and with Patton, Truscott, Roosevelt, Allen, etc, in the beachhead and arriving piecemeal. Most importantly, a Panzer counter attack is expected in France (hours after the landing starts), whereas the Germans surprised the Americans in Kasserine pass and enticed the tanks into an ambush with 88 mm guns, which the Germans willl have difficulty and little time to emplace in France. The 88 mm and howitzer crews will be exposed to naval fire also.

    Air brakes are for near-vertical dive bombing, 45° diving is also quite effective and does not require brakes. OTL a P-38 placed a bomb at the door of German HQ in normandy in a shallow dive obviously (killing several generals, etc,). Even low altitude, level bombing was quite efective with Mosquitoes, etc, destroying prison walls, Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen, etc, As stated the 37 mm guns of the P-39 are quite effective against planes (Pokrishkin, etc,) and tanks (like Rudel's Kannonenvogel, starting in Kursk, much later than the ATL invasion and against more effective tanks than the Panzer III, IV). The 20 mm canon of the P-38 are devastating against the tin armor of the Pz II and the brittle, thin side, rear and top armor of the 38 (t), still in use in France. The French 75 mm is also an excellent AT gun, as proven by Gerneral Koennig's forces defending the S flank in Gazala (Bir el Khakeim) before the ATL landings.
     
  15. archytas

    archytas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not Anglophobic, I like British sailors, pilots, marines, commandoes and troops. I only consider Churchill, Montbatten, Monty, Wilson, Pound, Alexander, Brooke, Cunningham, Butcher Harris, etc, certified lousy strategists and tacticians. I simply see absolutely no justification for giving Britain 3 times more L-L than the USSR (fighting a lot more and better armed and supplied divisions than bloody Monty and losing millions). And giving China still much less, despite killing far more Japanese and losing millions for a lot more years than Britain ever killed German military (not civilians) or IJA or IJN men. Nor do I see justification for allowing idiotic British high command to force Marshal and King to invade French N Africa and call the shots in Sicily, Italy, etc,. Both refused to sign the plans for the invasion, but were scolded and ordered by Roosevelt to sign it!

    If you think 100 mill is a lot look at 31 bill and the US had to finish off a small axis force in Africa (after the British farted around for years, sucking of hundreds of millions a week). Just look at the US costs incurred by sailing around S africa for years to supply Egypt, India, Iran, etc, just because the British did not take weak Pantelleria in 1940 (as planned by brilliant and ignored admiral Keyes) or flying materiel from India to China over the Himnalyas for years, just because Winnie ignored Roosevelt's request to liberate Burma promply with massive Indian and British forces (Churchill preferred to fart around in the Med and invade neutral French colonies at great cost, like Madagascar for long months). The US also had to bomb industry (Britian just blew up houses and burnt at great cost for years) and finish off the LW fighters before Normandy. The US also had to force Britian to invade France in 1944, Churchill waas quite happy sucking up massive L-L and wanted to postpone it for aother year!

    L-L 31 billion does not include the transportaion and escort costs for L-L to Britain, nor the massive naval repair, etc, nor the huge amount of brand new materiel sold to Britain at 10% cost at the end of the war and on 50 year credit!, nor the cost of a huge fleet to prevent a Tirpitz sortie for years, etc,
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2018
  16. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    I suppose I should wade through a bit of the insanity.

    Does that mean with "good transportation networks" it was a problem? :rolleyes::D And why are we concerned with the USSR's fuel, shouldn't we be concerned about the German's?

    The first significant bombing of Ploesti was 11 June 1942, by the 13 aircraft of HALPRO. It did no significant damage. The next was TIDAL WAVE, 1 August 1943, nearly a year after the hair-brained ATL (HATL). :rolleyes::eek: So we are looking at German resources.

    Increasing production is a bad thing for the German's? Or are we talking about the Soviets again? :rolleyes::D

    German Production/Consumption by Year (millions of MT):
    1939 8.353 / UNK
    1940 6.888 / 5.856
    1941 8.485 / 7.305
    1942 8.965/ 6.483
    1943 10.497 / 6.971
    1944 6.504 / UNK

    Reserves were actually increasing rapidly through 1943, it was the losses of production and the massive consumption in 1944 that caused the reserves to dwindle. That is two years away from your HATL. "Tanks and planes" moving "back and forth" is what armed forces do, but for moving major forces over large distances, the Germans used rail, which used coal, which the Germans had an abundance of.

    What "heavy losses to partisan activity"? It was the STO of February 1943, which sparked the growth and activity of resistance groups. Probably fewer than 200 Wehrmacht personnel were lost to resistance in France 1941-1943 and incidents of rail sabotage were few.

    Demyansk was the winter of 41/42, so could have little effect on October 1942. The airlift operation at Stalingrad began after 19 November, so also can have little effect on events a month or more prior.

    And yet the Italians were able to transfer the 20th Division and 47th Division by sea from Livorno to Corsica in a few days after 8 November 1942. Maybe they rowed?

    Yes, Hitler planned to seize the Caucasus oil to ensure future fuel supplies, but as we have seen in 1942 the problems with fuel were transportation. Fuel was flown to Alamein because it was more economical than driving it there from Tobruk, Benghazi, and Tripoli. Getting fuel by rail into southern France or mainland Italy in 1942 was not a significant problem.

    Gee, so you have some figures for these aircraft and tank parking lots in "Sicily, Italy, Yugoslavia and France"? :rolleyes::D BTW, it's Fredendall.

    Why are they going to lose them so much faster? And how much faster is it?

    Okay, so Truscott means you're landing the 3d ID in the beachhead. And Roosevelt and Allen is the 1st ID. So two divisions. Where?

    BTW, you are as ignorant of the actual events at "Kasserine" as you are of virtually every other aspect of the war you have opined on. There was no "ambush with 88 mm guns"...unless you have an actual source for that? :rolleyes::D

    Just like you have no idea why the dive brake modification to the P-38 was so critical. :rolleyes::D

    Source.

    I thought Brits only produced crap planes like Spitfires and Beaufighters... :rolleyes::D BTW, there were just two Mosquito squadrons operational as of your HATL...105 Squadron began converting in November 1941 and 139 Squadron converted in September 1942

    The 37mm Automatic Cannon M4 was quite a different weapon from the BK 3.7. By October 1942, there were zero Pz-38(t) in France, unless they were scrap. How many more meaningless factoids are you going to pop up with that have zero to do with the fundamental lunacy of your ideas?
     
    Takao likes this.
  17. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    This is starting to feel a lot like walking through a failed septic field...

    Do you like lumberjacks too?

    Gee, what about the $15-billion of Lend-Lease wasted in 1945? There's dollars we're never gonna see again... :rolleyes: Or what about the roughly 13% of Lend-Lease that was food? What a waste! Anyway, just as a reminder, only about 10% of all Lend-Lease expenditures were to October 1942...all the real "waste" was afterwards.

    BTW, Japanese military losses (KIA, DOD, MIA, and POW) 1937-1945 totaled about 2,134,000. Of those, an estimated 455,700 occurred in China and 210,830 in SE Asia (mostly versus the Commonwealth). Another 300,386 were naval losses, of which the Chinese inflicted relatively few, and 164,500 were lost in the Burma Campaign (mostly versus the Commonwealth, but also the Chinese). The remaining 1,002,584 were lost in the Pacific Campaigns (mainly Philippines and New Guinea). So yes, the Chinese did inflict "more" casualties than the British, c. 455,700+ versus c. 375,330+, but I suspect the naval losses inflicted by the British might about even it out. From that we could as easily conclude that rather than supply either the Chinese or the Commonwealth, the money would have been better spent on American forces - better bang for the buck. :rolleyes:

    Oh, and you do realize that the Lend-Lease to "Britain" subsumed the British Empire (excluding Canada)...so includes India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc., etc.

    What "100 mil"? The average weekly War Department Lend-Lease expenditure through 30 September 1942 was roughly $29-million, not "hundreds of millions".

    No bubba, why don't you "look at the US costs incurred" and tell us what they were?

    Oh, you mean WORKSHOP? The plan Churchill claimed was his and supported whole-heartedly with Keyes against the resistance of CIGS? I thought you said Churchill was an strategic idiot? Now he's a genius? Seriously? Can't you even keep your own insanity straight?

    Meanwhile, Malta was barely supported and defended with the resources available...now you want to send all 5,000 available Commandos to die on a useless island in November 1940? Oh, wait, you want to send four to five American divisions to die scattered on the French and Sardinian coast in October 1940, so at least you're consistent.

    More comic book history. Dude, put down the Big Boy's Illustrated History of the Big Wars and do some actual research. So just which "massive Indian and British forces" are those that were supposed to liberate Burma? You mean III Indian Corps lost in Singapore? You mean 17th Indian Division? Organized on 1 December 1941, sent to Burma 9 January 1942 partly equipped, manned, and trained because it was the only forces available? The Burmese Division?

    Damn bubba, you act like its your money.

    I've asked for sources or further information nicely a number of times, but you simply repeat false data. The American task force reinforcing the Home Fleet was dispersed by the end of August 1942 and most was sent to the Pacific, while others went to the TORCH task forces. What "huge fleet" are you talking about? What was its composition" Ship names? Dates? Task force organization?

    Cough up or shut up. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2018
    Takao and George Patton like this.
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    I have. Not seeing much (well actually anything) that supports your silliness and a lot that shows just how silly it is.
    What a silly statement to make. What routes do you suggest had surplus capacity? You do know that the first LL that the Soviets got came from Britain and not the US right? And that they supplied a good deal of it in 42? So the lack hulls isn't the only problem. Cut LL to Britain and they'll have to cut it to the Soviets. Then there's the whole thing about who supplying the hulls and escorts to get the stuff to the USSR.
    The Me-262 was not ready for deployment. Deploying a plane whose engines can't be expected to last even 20 hours is ridiculous, unless you've screwed up badly enough to get yourself in the situation the Germans did.
    Yeah the planes crashed and killed them without any help from allied planes.
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'd like to see you go through and supply some sort of evidence for each of them detailing what you are basing your opinion on for both strategy and tactics.
    The logical assumption to make based on that is that you are blind (i.e. mentally incompetent).
    Or a troll.
    Based on the evidence to date I'll go with both of the above.

    Your doing a very good job of proving that your opinion is so worthless as to constitute a waste of bandwidth. If you can't start at least attempting to support (with sources and not just more opinions/statements of yours) your position there's not much reason I can see to continue with this.
     
  20. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,709
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    I've read this without commenting, but the largest fallacy in the plan is simply that it completely ignores the actual history and results.

    In fact, the US AND Britain/Commonwealth did invade through the Med, targeting Italy first,rather than Southern France. Guess what? The Axis didn't topple. It knocked Italy out of the war and tied up a number of German divisions, but in the long run any southern invasion route ignores the Alps. You'd have to fight your way into northern Europe anyway, before turning across the Rhine.
    A successful invasion of Germany HAD to be done through northern Europe simply for geographic reasons alone.
    Now, consider supply; a northern invasion is supplied directly through France (and then Belgium) from Britain, a (relatively) simple, short and direct line of supply.
    An invasion through the south requires a tedious supply route down into the Med then up through southern France. In the real war, with limited armies operating in the south, it worked well enough. If one were to increase that supply to encompass a force the size of the one launched in 44 through France is wholly unrealistic.
    Consider also, a route through southern France would require fighting and clearing the German army through France as far as the Atlantic coast so that your flank is protected. Why wouldn't you start there to begin with instead of wasting untold numbers of men and materiel to get to Atlantic France which is the logical supply route to begin with?

    .
     

Share This Page