Yes but what is your intention?
To apply conservative logic to a hypothetical situation
GB was fighting for life at 1940/41 and germany was totaly in the war against the UDSSR after the lost of BoB!
Kinda true, but kinda not as well. Britains approach to continental wars since the spanish armada has been to support the second most powerful country in Europe, and thereby ensure that no single individual nation dominates the continent. a united Europe, hostile in its attitude to britain is a big threat.
Britain's chief offensive weapon since Napoleon has been blokcade and the classic application of seapower. It was the blockade and seapower that defeated the germans in 1918 more than the land offensives. both were needed, but the ground offensives would not be possible without the sea blockade
In the second war, Britain applied the same principal. This was complicated by the many leaks in the British ship of war. germany controlled all of europe, she was trading with neutral states that could not be blockaded (ie USSR) and was more self sufficient than previously. So the process of blockade was slowed by these effects, but not stopped. britains number one weapon against the germans was the blockade....a thing called the neutrality act, that said, essentially "we will sink your ships if you trade with the Germans". And they did. I have just about finished looking at german shipping losses on the Atlantic seaboard, well almost, for 1941. So far have found about 200000 tons of shipping sunk by the brits, maybe a bit more. Germany was denied the free usage of the oceans, the access to foreign markets outside Europe, and this hurt her economy. Britain lost far far more shipping, but she could afford to do this, and eventually solved the U-Boat issue. The allied offensive against german shipping just got worse and worse.
There were of course other offensives taking place that whilst pin pricks really, were the foundation stones for later operations. Of course there were the Bomber raids, but also missions like Taranto, Spitzbergen, the fighter sweeps over france (costly and only partially successful), the conquest of Abysinnia, and O'connors offensive are just examples of what was happening. so whilst survival was the main game, there were also steps toward offensive action, right from day 1 of the war
You suggest that a german move to "total" war against GB would have major counter action!
From what forces? Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, GB troops? What can GB do at 1941 other then they have done at the Mediterranean
?
Plenty. Starting with being able to divert an additional 9% of her outputs that were originally intended for the dominion forces, but were instead diverted to Russia. something like 2000 tanks, about 2500 a/c, and similar amounts of every imaginable piece of military hardware was either diverted directly from Britain, or diverted from Lend Lease, that had been promised to britain, but passed to russia.
There were vast amounts of naval assets, trained and untrained manpower, aircraft, merchant shipping military hardware being diverted from the european war effort, to the containment of the japanese. all of this could have been used in the Middle east. Around an additional 700 aircraft were maintained in the Far East, around 400 aircraft were also diverted from britain to china, at least two fully trained and experienced divisions. with that additional equipment not going to Russia, enough equipment to train and deploy about 10 australian divisions (which had been raised and trained, but not equipped, including a full armoured div). There were about 35 Indian Divs in the same boat, all now sitting around waiting to fight someone.
Also, though this is specualtive (abstract), there is every possibility that an increased threat on the south, aimed at Suez and beyond, would have boosted domestic production in the Dominions. I dont think it unreasonable to assume that 1942 production levels for Aus, India and NZ would not have been pushed forward as a result of the escalation in the med. Then we have the vast resources of Canada, a more significant industrial nation than italy during the war, and of course Britains home production, which in 1941 generally outstripped that of germany in just about every category.
In terms of immediate naval assets, there is approximately 1m tons of shipping the allies could use from the far east just sitting around waiting to be sunk or captured by Japan, about 20 destroyers, carrier Implacable, battleships PoW and Repulse, 5 Heavy cruisers, 8 Light Cruisers,, and from memory 3 or 4 aa cruisers. These are quite vast resources. There is a fully trained Australian Division in Malaya, another fully trained Div enroute (the 18th), the equivalent of a trained div in Burma, a full brigade in Fiji, another 5 Bdes in NZ, 12 Divs in Australia, a brigade in Hong Kong, two Brigades in ceylon, 35 Divs in India, another 5 divs in Malaya, 2 divs in South Africa. Do i need to continue. It also needs to be pointed out that approximately half the material being diverted to the pacific TO by the Americans was originally intended as Lend lease, roughly speaking this amounted to about 500 aircraft, all of them brand new. Without a japanese threat this would likely go back to the dominions, with additional aircraft added by the americans
So realistically from June to December 1941, under this sceanrio, you might see an additional 15 or 20 allied divisions in the delta, an additional 2500-3000 aircraft, pretty much a doubling of the Med Fleet.
Germany is never going to win a resources battle
From what sources came troops, aircrafts and ships? GB was totaly involved at the Mediterranean war at 1941 from the given sources!
You are incorrect on that score. Most of the troops in fact were Dominion, but most of the dominions were occupied either supplying the russians, or diverting resources to the pacific. With both these drains gone, it seems logical to me to expect a boost in the TO.
As you can read at any book germany wasn't! All moves were under circumstances of the war to the UDSSR!
Neither was Britain fully committed to the southern front. The majority of her army remained in England. The same for her air force and her navy. there were plenty of additional resources, both combat and logistical, to pour into this TO if need be
At this given scenario there will first no plan for the war to the UDSSR and second all plans and ressources would under the circumstances to a total war to GB
And unless the brits want to lose, or are incredibly dumb, they are going to respond on a like for like basis, call on her allies to move to a full war futting as well (which they could do, but didnt. These allies did that anyway, in 1942)
What is that difficult, that if germany move all his strenghts to the Mediterranean, especially logistic and LW, that GB would be in real trouble!
heaps. Just as an example, DAK in 1941 had as many trucks allocated to it as the entire army Group South Command. i dont think you are realizing just how intensive the logistical problems were on this front. Moreover they were demands not easily met by the existing german force structure
Germany managed with low logistic, low LW forces and low ground troops to give GB a hard time for 2 years with perhaps 5% of the given logistical, economical and military strenghts and now you want tell me, that if germany moves 50-70% of this capacity to the Mediterranean, all would be the same as historical?
Not unless you exclude the italians can you say this. If you exclude the Italians, then we should exclude the dominions, if you include the italians, then we include the Dominions, but then resources poured in by the respective sides is heavily weighted in favour of the axis. they poured far more into the fight than the Allies, and lost far more incidentally. You are conveneitnetly forgetting that Libya was an italian colony, with italian control and italian troops. but even just counting germans only to british troops, the comparison is weighted in favour of the germans. they put more into the theatre historically than the british ever did, until 1943
