As I have seen in many posts here and in other places after Sicily it would have been prudent to take Sardinia and Corsica thus placing the entire Italian west coast at risk and southern France. Also creates more airbases to allow decrease the range the bombers and fighters have to travel to targets and strain the Luftwaffe even further. These campaigns would not take to long relatively so still allows for buildup for Overlord. Fringe benefit is allies don't have to provide for the Italian civilian population.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Most of British Oil came from Malaysia, Burma, Middle East and Iran.
Last edited:
It seems unlikely that the UK would be happy to go along with a US Operation Sledgehammer by unblooded US forces. It seems less likely the US would do it alone. The Canadians will still want to "do something" before their neighbours arrive, so Dieppe / Jubilee will likely happen. Hopefully, Valentine's Tanks (briefly getting back to the POD here) can climb shale beaches better than a Churchill. When Jubilee fails, the British & Empire forces will be even less keen on Sledgehammer.
That leaves Norway or the Med. Fortitude North would take a lot of pressure off the convoys to Stalin (Kûrvi-Tasch; I believe a fellow Tintin-phile called him), and provide the WAllies with quality Iron Ore from Narvik. However, it involves attacking a large German army in inhospitable terrain and rough weather. The only place it leads to is Finland, and although there is a remote chance to liberate Estonia after Zitadelle fails and the Red Army is able to overpower the Germans, it's not the continent.
The Med will be an Island-Hopping campaign, which is the same as the US Navy & Marines may be prepared for. (Ironically, this war may see Island Hopping in the ETO and field armies in the Pacific). The East Med is more convenient for the Empire, as it is closer to key nodes & the 8th Army. Hence the plan to "practice" in Rhodes.
With Sicily splitting the Med, and the long way around being very inefficient for shipping, it seems unlikely the Americans will want to attack in the East Med. It is also quite out of the way and running around in the Balkans is more Churchillian than American. That leaves Vichy North Africa or Corsica, Sardegnia & Sicily. FNA is a source of Iron Ore but against a weaker opponent than the Wehrmacht. Arguably it's a fringe operation, but it does secure the Allied flanks. Corsica and Sicily are much closer to enemy air power. Sardinia is not so much.
As noted, Sardegna has a major port, is Italian, and is well located to function as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier". It projects power towards the other two islands and threatens the Axis from Perpignan to Palermo. It is impossible for the enemy to reinforce and so is a guaranteed American win as soon as the US Navy arrives.
Looking at a map, I would even go so far as to say that without Tunisia in Allied hands, Malta is likely insufficient to properly be a springboard to take Sicily, unless Sardinia is Allied-controlled.
But we shall see what our excellent author decides.
That leaves Norway or the Med. Fortitude North would take a lot of pressure off the convoys to Stalin (Kûrvi-Tasch; I believe a fellow Tintin-phile called him), and provide the WAllies with quality Iron Ore from Narvik. However, it involves attacking a large German army in inhospitable terrain and rough weather. The only place it leads to is Finland, and although there is a remote chance to liberate Estonia after Zitadelle fails and the Red Army is able to overpower the Germans, it's not the continent.
The Med will be an Island-Hopping campaign, which is the same as the US Navy & Marines may be prepared for. (Ironically, this war may see Island Hopping in the ETO and field armies in the Pacific). The East Med is more convenient for the Empire, as it is closer to key nodes & the 8th Army. Hence the plan to "practice" in Rhodes.
With Sicily splitting the Med, and the long way around being very inefficient for shipping, it seems unlikely the Americans will want to attack in the East Med. It is also quite out of the way and running around in the Balkans is more Churchillian than American. That leaves Vichy North Africa or Corsica, Sardegnia & Sicily. FNA is a source of Iron Ore but against a weaker opponent than the Wehrmacht. Arguably it's a fringe operation, but it does secure the Allied flanks. Corsica and Sicily are much closer to enemy air power. Sardinia is not so much.
As noted, Sardegna has a major port, is Italian, and is well located to function as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier". It projects power towards the other two islands and threatens the Axis from Perpignan to Palermo. It is impossible for the enemy to reinforce and so is a guaranteed American win as soon as the US Navy arrives.
Looking at a map, I would even go so far as to say that without Tunisia in Allied hands, Malta is likely insufficient to properly be a springboard to take Sicily, unless Sardinia is Allied-controlled.
But we shall see what our excellent author decides.
In 1943, the Germans did exactly that, with a Brandenburger unit manning an ex-Norwegian freighter and running it through the Seuz Canal, Sounds weird I know but it happened in real life. It was am audacious operation and was done for blockade running. The Brandenburgers were an elite unit and were formed in 1939 for operations in Poland originally.
Derek Pullem
Donor
True but that was hiding in plain sight - as a freighter shipping iron ore (which happened to be shipping guns for Chandra Bose's allies.) Understandably the details are sketchy and may be hyped a bit. A second boat was lost at sea when it tried the Cape route.
Not exactly a secure route either way.
Asian Jumbo
Monthly Donor
As far as I can see the logic of taking Sicily next is pretty inescapable. Better logistics, possibility of knocking Italy out of the war, blooding the US forces etc etc. From a US perspective better logistics for UK+ forces IS important for many reasons and we also must avoid thinking of the US/UK relationship as being the massively lopsided one that we see today. The UK is still a very very major, if not still (just) THE senior player amongst the Allies at this point.
Where to go after Sicily is more interesting. Looking at the attritional nightmare the Italian campaign became makes Sardinia or even Corsica look more attractive as alternatives but it’s slightly “nicest mass-murderer in the asylum” territory frankly. Best to leave all of them (Italian mainland, Sardinia & Corsica) and focus on getting organised for Normandy IMHO
Where to go after Sicily is more interesting. Looking at the attritional nightmare the Italian campaign became makes Sardinia or even Corsica look more attractive as alternatives but it’s slightly “nicest mass-murderer in the asylum” territory frankly. Best to leave all of them (Italian mainland, Sardinia & Corsica) and focus on getting organised for Normandy IMHO
Whilst having airbases on Corsica and Sardinia sounds attractive one has to question how the many, many tons a day of supplies, fuel, bombs etc. will get to these islands in quantity. Only by ship and you are placing shipping near the Italian coast (avoiding which is the reason for invading Sicily) well within Axis range of naval and air forces. Too close to the mainland. I am presuming the fall of Tunisia of course. What taking just Sicily does is free shipping to pass along the North African coast, practices amphibious landings and is a clear hazard to the Axis of landings upon the Italian mainland that cannot be ignored thus tying up Axis resources for little cost thereafter. Especially with a sound deception plan.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Same argument for logistics goes for campaigns in Sicily and Italy. Every bomb, aircraft and drop of fuel from OTL's 9th and 12th (later 15th) Air Force had to be shipped in.
It would make little difference whether the 12th Air force was based in Oran or Sardinia if Sardinia and Corsica were cleared in 1942 (cf. OTL September 1943)
As you say taking Sicily presents a threat of landing on the mainland. By taking Corsica and Sardinia you have massively multiplied that threat along the entire eastern coastline of italy and the southern coast of France. This will force the axis to tie up troops for an invasion and make them unavailable elsewhere. Further since the plan was to engage and destroy the Axis airpower any way you have now opened another front for that and forced them to spread out their forces weakening them further. If they want to come out to attack the islands in allied radar coverage that is even better as they will lose pilots they cannot afford to lose. As for naval forces if they want to come and fight the allies would be glad as they can eliminate the fleet in being and reduce even further ships needed in the med. As the allies aren't going to be able to launch a cross channel invasion yet anyway this is further practice and blooding of troops with a limited engagement timeline such that it should not cause any real problems for the cross channel build up. Also shows Russians and allied civilian populations that the western allies are fighting and winning. Fringe benefit if Italy wants to exit the war but nothing to count on.
There were other air forces than the USAAF about you know. However, unlike Oran Sardinia and Corsica would be open to Axis bombing and shipping to Oran would not be subject to air or surface attacks. In the case of Corsica at least attacks from bases from France as well as Italy.
Before we look at any large scale amphibious operations there are still the small scale ones to go through first.
Rhodes and probably some other Aegean Islands will be attacked to begin with. As an outgrowth of that campaign the Pelagie Islands shown below make a logical next step along with Pantelleria which is to the west of Malta.
Rhodes and probably some other Aegean Islands will be attacked to begin with. As an outgrowth of that campaign the Pelagie Islands shown below make a logical next step along with Pantelleria which is to the west of Malta.
Note that Lampedusa has an airfield. Only one runway with no way to add more, and very limited land availability for parking, repairing or rearming aircraft as a base, but the runway (at least currently) is almost 6000 feet long and 150 feet wide.
Marc H wrote "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."
I don't think so. Yes ITTL there is a bit less desperation. Lessons learnt from early Valiants in France led to success in NA and more resources in Singapore etc. However - Britain is skint. It didn't buy all those wonderful tanks designs we've come up with in 1935/36 for good reason. Britain is economically Miss Haversham, in a grand old empire all dressed up but the silverware all got shipped off in 1914 to 1918. Living on visions of Edwardian global superiority and getting back on the gold standard in the 1920s was economic suicide from Chancellor Churchill and he paid the price in the 30s when no one wanted to re-arm. Keynes begged him not to. But it all came down to prestige.
Those wonderful Armoured Carriers, that growing Army are all bought on the HP. It simply cannot afford WW2 without the wealth of the US. In terms of Gold, resources, and manpower. The US will be calling the big shots, listening yes, but also without the plight of the UK being quite so drastic, is the USA really going to spend it's blood and treasure to prop up Empire? In real life - the USA smacked Britain back into place just a few years later with the Suez Crisis.
I don't think so. Yes ITTL there is a bit less desperation. Lessons learnt from early Valiants in France led to success in NA and more resources in Singapore etc. However - Britain is skint. It didn't buy all those wonderful tanks designs we've come up with in 1935/36 for good reason. Britain is economically Miss Haversham, in a grand old empire all dressed up but the silverware all got shipped off in 1914 to 1918. Living on visions of Edwardian global superiority and getting back on the gold standard in the 1920s was economic suicide from Chancellor Churchill and he paid the price in the 30s when no one wanted to re-arm. Keynes begged him not to. But it all came down to prestige.
Those wonderful Armoured Carriers, that growing Army are all bought on the HP. It simply cannot afford WW2 without the wealth of the US. In terms of Gold, resources, and manpower. The US will be calling the big shots, listening yes, but also without the plight of the UK being quite so drastic, is the USA really going to spend it's blood and treasure to prop up Empire? In real life - the USA smacked Britain back into place just a few years later with the Suez Crisis.
At this stage, how may divisions to the US have? At this stage, in this timeline, the UK has some of the best tank designs in the world, and is about to start production in the definitive tank of the war.
The UK was skint after the otl ww2, here, holding onto Malaya, Burma (areas of empire that made the UK money) and with greater manpower available (both due to the above, and due to the lack of massive losses in Greece and NA), they’ll be far better off economically.
As others have pointed out opening the med to shopping a year earlier than otl will have massive implications for the UK, like reestablishing some pre war trade routes in the sterling zone, together with huge savings on shipping gong round the cape enabling better usage of those ships.
I really don’t think you’ve properly grasped how different this war will be.
As true as all of this is, the UK is from it's own internal perspective hard-pressed and skint. This isn't Shipshape, they don't know how much worse it could have been; and both the US and the UK know the US will have bigger forces in due time, even if they're not there yet.
Yet being the key word. Right now for any major operations in Europe Britain will HAVE to take the lead because America can't. This isn't 1944 where America will just pour divisions into Europe after a landing, it is 1942 and those divisions either don't exist yet or are nowhere near ready for war.
It is also important to bear in mind that Britain is, at present, holding up the Japanese as well in the far east. Opening up the Mediterranean for British shipping is good not just for Britain but for America as well as it means they have more time to get their act together and take on the Japanese. Right now the bigger picture for America is that Britain is doing the heavy lifting, anything that improves the British position removes the burden of supporting Britain in some capacity from America. That will allow America to focus on their own armed forces and their build up and that will allow them to start taking the lead more. Until America can say that we can take on some of the heavy lifting they are the second power.
Donald Reaver
Donor
What percentage of oil available from fields have the Japanese captured here compared to o.t.l.? They also probably lose more tankers to subs.
Regards Dieppe and other Tank beach assaults. Valiant is not going to be any better at "Shale/ beach" climbing than a Churchill. This was covered a couple of months ago. The Merritt Brown Triple Diff DOES help with Hill climbing , not directly in that it doesn't inherently have a better low gear ratio, but it is a steering system that allows power to very efficiently,and quickly, be directed to each track with minimal loss. So if there is any angle or difference in traction in the slope (and in any slope there will be between 2 tracks) then Driver can adjust. Valiant has a better power to weight ratio and the big diesel better low end torque so that does help but the Wilson Pre Selector and Brake based steering isn't going to be as good at precisely applying it. Call it a wash , maybe, but probable advantage Churchill - less power but slow n steady.