W.W.2 No Germans to North Africa...

[Markus Becker]

They certainly had a good reason to assume the absolut worst wrt Germany. Plus if you look at the industrial warmaking capacity, Japan was a bit better then Italy. 

[bojan]

4 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

IMO not very likely. The initial force was tiny. It won't make a big enough difference in the invasion of the USSR in 41. 

He also says "no LL to Soviets" which means that while Soviets would probably be able to successfully defend they would not be able to successfully advance, at least not close to the 1944/45 level. That would also mean more Germans are able to be allocated at western front, which would mean slower western Allies advance. Hence war lasting longer.

It would have also impacted Pacific more, with more US forces having to be allocated to Europe.

But that additional time also gives additional time for US to make more bombs, which probably meant that Germany gets nuked probably once and unconditionally surrender  after that, hence war in Europe is probably over by late 1945/early 1946. Then in 1946. nukes start dropping on Japan (US had something like 5 at that point, so -1 for Germany it is 4 available for Japan), possibly more than two this time, as more effort would be needed to convince them to surrender if they were in better overall shape, as I doubt Soviets would be able to advance in the at the level they did historically in Manchuria w/o LL and due the less forces allocated to Pacific it is quite possible that even things like Okinawa would not happen.

[bojan]

3 hours ago, Rick said:

... The atom bomb was used on Japan due to the tenacious "fighting spirit" of the Japanese...

That is a post factum explanation. At that moment military viewed A bomb as simple "one plane does what we needed hundreds of bomber raid before". Considered that cities in Germany were bombed just as mercilessly as ones in Japan by conventional raids I really doubt that in case of stubborn German resistance lasting well in the 1945. bomb would not be used.

Edited January 28, 2024 by bojan

[bojan]

PS. IMO, far more interesting scenario is "What if Italy does not declare war on UK and France?". Does RAF gets their 300 Re.2000 and 300 Caproni 313 that they have ordered in January 1940?

[Markus Becker]

30 minutes ago, bojan said:

He also says "no LL to Soviets" which means that while Soviets would probably be able to successfully defend they would not be able to successfully advance, at least not close to the 1944/45 level.

Completely overlooked that and yes, it would screw the USSR very badly but why would the UK and USA not support it's strange new bedfellow, who was keeping the vast majority of the Wehrmacht occupied? 

 

Quote

"What if Italy does not declare war on UK and France?"

Lucrative times ahead in Bella Italia for sure. Peace in Greece. Yugoslavia doesn't get invaded and descents into a slaughterhouse of Eastern Front ugliness. 

Much thougher times for the U boats in the Atlantic and big problems for Japan. 

[Argus]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

1/ The Italians will be out of Libya in 1941, but the British did not have the shipping, air forces, troops, or the logistics to threaten Sicily without the Americans, and the war in the Balkans will wind up in an Axis occupation of Greece.

2/ I'm sure the Luftwaffe would be delighted to tee off on British convoys attempting the run past Sicily.  It would be a race between that and the U-boats as to who was sinking more.   IMO, the British will not use the Med route for shipping until they'd secured Sicily and Tunisia, and both of these would require the Americans.

3/ The Germans have done slightly better in Russia because of the concentration of more forces there.  The Japanese will jump into the tiger pit on that basis.  The fall of Libya will have no impact on their calculations, IMO.

1/ Sorry but no, I don't think such pessimism can be justified.  Admittedly Japan is a factor, given they might be more reluctant to kick things off without the historical North African campaign.  But then war with Japan just increases the priority on clearing the Med.  Husky was not Overlord, just under half a million men overall, 160k up front. American involvement in Husky was for a whole raft of very good political strategic and operational reasons, less so (AFAIK) absolute necessity - and then if the Asian war does kick off, why wouldn't there be American involvement?   

2/ You need to have a look at the air war over the Med. If you read my original post, I did say invading Sicily was an option but clearing the Med was the objective. With the North African coast in hand, the first 2/3rds of the run across from Egypt can be covered by land based air. As per historical the Lw/RA threat to convoys only came once clear of the Desert Airforce's fighter coverage. The comes the narrows and whatever gap the French cause between Tunisia and Gibraltar - about 3 days for a 12 knot convoy at most.  But IIRC its really only about 2 days once we feed in the fighter arcs from Malta/Gib and the Lw/RA ranges, less again if/when they get Panteleria. Not ideal but not the end of the world either. Then comes the suppression effort, the RAF is going to be leaning over Sicily hard - oh but they don't have the aircraft! Well sure, not enough to achieve the totally utterly massive air domination the allied achieved historically, but the point is having enough to get the job done well enough. 

3/ I agree without the DAK and lets not forget the Italians, there'd be more resources for Russia, I'm not sure how much difference it'd make in the end, but there'd be a difference to be sure.
However I have to ask for the thinking behind your position here.  You say the Japanese would care more about what was happening between Germany and Russia, than about what the Cw was doing in the Med. The Russian front has little direct impact on Japan or its projected expansion to the South, it doesn't plan on fighting Russia (again) or expect any direct help from Germany. Yet they do plan on attacking the British directly, and the North African/Med campaign is being fought for and across the principal line of communication between Britain and the Japanese, its utterly critical to 25-50% of the war they are looking to fight... and you'd say Tokyo would ignore it....?????? 

Edited January 29, 2024 by Argus

[seahawk]

If Germany sees the folly of that fight, they would or should also have seen the pointlessness of the Battle of Britain and the impossibility of invading the Soviet Union.

Sure the British can then quickly hug the coastline and drive convoys through the med, but bombing Italy kind of reverses the roles of the BoB with the British being forced to send bombers unprotected or fight fighters at the edge of their range.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Why would they think that if you are still allied? They'd probably thank you for softening up that though nut and then point out to the occupied Germans that they had nothing to do with that horrific weapon. 

Because if they were going to keep going west, then at that point Im not sure we would interpret their action as being 'allied'. My point was not to drop it on them whilst they were in Berlin. My idea would be to finish the Reich off before they got there.

Is it likely Stalin would do that? I dont know. As I say, he did try it on postwar in Iran, despite not quite having fallen out with the Western allies yet. I will say this. I think the reason why 2 Atomic bombs were dropped on Japan was primarily about deterring Stalins postwar ambitions. If the Reich was still in the fight, I dont see why we wouldnt do the same thing there.

Edited January 29, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Perun]

15 hours ago, glenn239 said:

An all out British effort without the Americans?  Maybe, once the Germans are balls deep in Russia.  Once the 8th Army takes Tripoli, it seems at least possible, if not entirely likely.   The British could run convoys from Egypt to Tripoli under RAF air cover throughout Libya.  Once a buildup had been completed, they could invade Tunisia from the south, and Morocco, simultaneously.

Did British had manpower for that

[Perun]

13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I could see a circumstance where if we hadn't liberated France, we would have nuked Berlin to keep the Soviets from heading further west.

I doubt that. Nukes were under US control and they didnt support British imperialism, they had their own plan with Soviets and for europe

[Perun]

13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure it would, if they thought the next one might be on Moscow. After all they backed down in Iran and the Berlin airlift after the US deployed B29s to the UK. They didn't have a lot that could stop a B29 in 1945.

B-29 had to fly a long trip under "enemy territory" on the way to Moscow. And again, US had diferent plans with Soviets. FDR didnt want to go to war with them. Soviets backed down from Iran for totaly diferent reasons and not because of B-29

[Rick]

10 hours ago, bojan said:

That is a post factum explanation. At that moment military viewed A bomb as simple "one plane does what we needed hundreds of bomber raid before". Considered that cities in Germany were bombed just as mercilessly as ones in Japan by conventional raids I really doubt that in case of stubborn German resistance lasting well in the 1945. bomb would not be used.

I could be wrong and am going by memory, but I believe via various readings of history throughout my life that the decision to use the atom bomb on Japan was based on the factors I mentioned earlier. I would also add that Japan delivered a brutal attack on Pearl Harbor before a declaration of war, an act to the American way of thinking as cowardly and deserving a no-holds-bar response. Also there were reports of Japanese atrocities through out the war on both civilians and P.o.W.'s that, iirc, wasn't so much reported to the public, but acknowledged by the military and higher echelons of government.  Also, by this time the war for the U.S. has been going on for almost four years with public support for war beginning to wain. This along the previous mention of the Japanese mentality and large loss of U.S. lives in an actual invasion of Japan made the decision to use the atom bomb on Japan. And it would be virtually all U.S. lives lost as there would be none or little other Allied countries in this invasion. 

I don't see this decision being different if it took the Red Army additional time to reach inside Germany. From memory, I believe the main U.S. contributions to Lend-Lease was petroleum products and other chemicals, trucks, and food.

[Rick]

11 hours ago, bojan said:

He also says "no LL to Soviets" which means that while Soviets would probably be able to successfully defend they would not be able to successfully advance, at least not close to the 1944/45 level. That would also mean more Germans are able to be allocated at western front, which would mean slower western Allies advance. Hence war lasting longer.

It would have also impacted Pacific more, with more US forces having to be allocated to Europe.

But that additional time also gives additional time for US to make more bombs, which probably meant that Germany gets nuked probably once and unconditionally surrender  after that, hence war in Europe is probably over by late 1945/early 1946. Then in 1946. nukes start dropping on Japan (US had something like 5 at that point, so -1 for Germany it is 4 available for Japan), possibly more than two this time, as more effort would be needed to convince them to surrender if they were in better overall shape, as I doubt Soviets would be able to advance in the at the level they did historically in Manchuria w/o LL and due the less forces allocated to Pacific it is quite possible that even things like Okinawa would not happen.

Interesting last paragraph that I have not thought of.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

I doubt that. Nukes were under US control and they didnt support British imperialism, they had their own plan with Soviets and for europe

Yes, when I said 'We', I meant us, the French and the Americans as allies. And you should know, Eisenhower flirted with the idea of helping the French with the use of nuclear weapons at Dien Bien Phu. Mind you, he was something of a nuke groupie, the crazy old bastard.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27243803

Besides, we had our own atomic weapons program. The only question is whether it could have been accelerated quickly enough to matter.

 

[futon]

12 hours ago, bojan said:

He also says "no LL to Soviets" which means that while Soviets would probably be able to successfully defend they would not be able to successfully advance, at least not close to the 1944/45 level. That would also mean more Germans are able to be allocated at western front, which would mean slower western Allies advance. Hence war lasting longer.

It would have also impacted Pacific more, with more US forces having to be allocated to Europe.

But that additional time also gives additional time for US to make more bombs, which probably meant that Germany gets nuked probably once and unconditionally surrender  after that, hence war in Europe is probably over by late 1945/early 1946. Then in 1946. nukes start dropping on Japan (US had something like 5 at that point, so -1 for Germany it is 4 available for Japan), possibly more than two this time, as more effort would be needed to convince them to surrender if they were in better overall shape, as I doubt Soviets would be able to advance in the at the level they did historically in Manchuria w/o LL and due the less forces allocated to Pacific it is quite possible that even things like Okinawa would not happen.

Regarding nukes start falling on Japan in 1946.. delays may mean lots of changes. In order for the US to nuke Japan by 1946, it would still need Saipan. B-36 probably wouldn't be ready yet. The main army units that were in charge of defending Saipan were deployed there around April of 1944, only two months prior the battle. The Japanese figured Peleliu would be hit beforehand. The construction of defenses for Saipan roughly had the same time table as Peleliu, with all the bunkers and everything. So if delay means setting back the invasion of Saipan by 6 months, it would have been a giant Peleliu. It also 6 months for time for the Japanese to recover naval fighter pilot strength. If the US doesn't get Saipan, then it won't be fire bombing Japan. Unconventional means of succeeding in dropping an atomic bomb in the abscense of workhorse bombing won't be enough to compel Japan to accept those absurd terms of unconditional surrender. And after seeing an a-bomb on Germany, Japan's atomic bomb program is going go get priority.

Edited January 29, 2024 by futon

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

B-29 had to fly a long trip under "enemy territory" on the way to Moscow. And again, US had diferent plans with Soviets. FDR didnt want to go to war with them. Soviets backed down from Iran for totaly diferent reasons and not because of B-29

What did the Soviets have in 1945 that could catch a B29 at 31000 feet? And the answer is, not a lot. There was the BI-1 and that was point defence. With no integrated air defence system, good luck getting a warning and getting it in position so i could make an intercept. Assume you leave it till 1946, there is the Mig9, a reasonably nice aircraft for a first jet fighter. The only negative was if you fired the guns, and the engine flamed out...

By the time the bomb would be available, Roosevelt was dead. And I think we have already realised Truman was a different kettle of fish.

Edited January 29, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

Nobody would fight a war with the Soviets after the Nazis have been defeated, even if the Soviets move into Paris.

[Perun]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, when I said 'We', I meant us, the French and the Americans as allies. 

Besides, we had our own atomic weapons program. The only question is whether it could have been accelerated quickly enough to matter.

 

No, there was no us with atomic bomb only US and they didnt want to use it other then for their own interest.

UK atomic bomb program didnt produce any bomb before 1952.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 23, 2024 by Junior FO

[JWB]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

What did the Soviets have in 1945 that could catch a B29 at 31000 feet?

P-63?

[glenn239]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

However I have to ask for the thinking behind your position here.  You say the Japanese would care more about what was happening between Germany and Russia, than about what the Cw was doing in the Med. The Russian front has little direct impact on Japan or its projected expansion to the South, it doesn't plan on fighting Russia (again) or expect any direct help from Germany. Yet they do plan on attacking the British directly, and the North African/Med campaign is being fought for and across the principal line of communication between Britain and the Japanese, its utterly critical to 25-50% of the war they are looking to fight... and you'd say Tokyo would ignore it....?????? 

The Japanese mindset in 1941 as I understand it was that a German victory over the USSR was a sure thing, in the bank, and this "fact", coupled with the recently signed Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact, cleared their rear up for an advance southward.   I don't know how much they paid attention to British lines of communication.  My impression is that they were more focused on what was in Malaya on game day.

[BansheeOne]

22 minutes ago, Junior FO said:

Then London becomes a Nature Preserve. The Germans had enough persistent Nerve agent to do it, and the means to deliver it as well. Unless the Germans fold quick, the US Eastern Coast with it's Urban centres also become targets.

You are glenn239, and I claim my five pounds! 😃

[JWB]

If H ignores N.A. then the U.K. is in control of all North Africa by mid 1942. M still declares war against U.S.A. which means TORCH goes into Sicily.  BAYTOWN happens 6 months sooner.  With 6 months of good campaign weather the Allied force could reach the Po by the end of 1943. The Po would certainly be crossed during summer 1944.  B8A heads east to Zagreb then south to Greece. US5A would follow the Brits but turn north into Austria. If Clark takes Vienna H probably gets deposed by his own generals.

[Perun]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

What did the Soviets have in 1945 that could catch a B29 at 31000 feet?

La-5, MiG-3

[Markus Becker]

1 hour ago, JWB said:

If H ignores N.A. then the U.K. is in control of all North Africa by mid 1942. M still declares war against U.S.A. which means TORCH goes into Sicily.  BAYTOWN happens 6 months sooner.  With 6 months of good campaign weather the Allied force could reach the Po by the end of 1943. The Po would certainly be crossed during summer 1944.  B8A heads east to Zagreb then south to Greece. US5A would follow the Brits but turn north into Austria. If Clark takes Vienna H probably gets deposed by his own generals.

 

We'd probably not get that lucky but if the Allies are in northern Italy in the spring of 44, they are in an excellent position to do many things, air raids over the Alps into Germany, taking a detour around the Alps via northern Yugoslavia and Hungary or most likely heading the other way into southern France, while the allied forces in the UK prepare for yet another attack on France. 

The Germans would have to cover all these bases and they have the exterior lines.