Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe he doesn't care, but the RN most certainly did. So would Raeder and Doenitz. Even Hitler would notice the easier logistics for the UK. USSR, not so much. Of course, Churchill would be unable to make fatuous comments about the "soft underbelly of Europe," not noticing the Alps.I explained my opinion above. It has nothing to do with German officer memoirs. The Germans in the Sahara fought at the end of a long, aggressively torpedoed line of communication. It was a great place for the British and the Americans to learn to fight them. The Kasserine Pass was nothing compared to what everyone else experienced when they first contacted the Germans.
If I am Hitler, I don't care what the Royal Navy does in the Mediterranean. The more stuff they do in the Mediterranean, the better.
For fun, try imagine the conversation that takes place between Franklin Roosevelt and George Marshall, and Stalin, after Lloyd Fredendall commands a US army corps at Stalingrad or Kursk.
One can also expect the British, not having lost hundreds of Hurricanes, P-40s and Blenheims in the North African campaign, to have sent a number of Squadrons further east of British and American planes. Perhaps the British substitute Italian aircraft as aid to Russia?Plus, since Italy is our topic and is playing merchant to the world, I expect RAF Malayan Command may well be fielding a sizeable force of Italian-made fighters and bombers.
An interesting turn of events.One can also expect the British, not having lost hundreds of Hurricanes, P-40s and Blenheims in the North African campaign, to have sent a number of Squadrons further east of British and American planes. Perhaps the British substitute Italian aircraft as aid to Russia?
Unless the invader lands well north there was a minor obstacle called the ApenninesMaybe he doesn't care, but the RN most certainly did. So would Raeder and Doenitz. Even Hitler would notice the easier logistics for the UK. USSR, not so much. Of course, Churchill would be unable to make fatuous comments about the "soft underbelly of Europe," not noticing the Alps.
Everybody knows that Japanese pilots wore thick, Coke bottle bottom glasses, and they had no clue of how to fly their aircraft.If you have both accurate intel of your opponent and options on what weaponry to field, you don't face your enemy where they are strongest. If they bring swords, you bring spears, if they bring horses, you bring pikes. So, presuming the British are aware of and appreciate the Kido Butai's strength, the RN will not be sending Sea Gladiators and Fulmars to face the Japanese. Instead, once Japan occupies FIC in Sept 1940, Britain will be sending the RN's deadly, Perisher-commanded submarines to Singapore and Hong Kong, against which the IJN has no credible ASW defence. Plus, since Italy is our topic and is playing merchant to the world, I expect RAF Malayan Command may well be fielding a sizeable force of Italian-made fighters and bombers.
Maybe he doesn't care, but the RN most certainly did. So would Raeder and Doenitz. Even Hitler would notice the easier logistics for the UK. USSR, not so much. Of course, Churchill would be unable to make fatuous comments about the "soft underbelly of Europe," not noticing the Alps.
In the real war, how much stuff reached the Pacific and Australia through the Suez Canal, past Italy? Sailing to Malta was nasty and dangerous. Sailing past it gives the Italians more time to get into mischief. The route around the Cape of Good Hope sounds way safer, even if a bit longer.Leaving aside the alt-history of grabbing Middle East oilfield fantasies, simply shutting off Suez would significantly reduce British traffic between the home island and India and Australia -- not even counting sinkings, which would probably increase, but simply from travel time.
If Hitler had been able to convince Franco to support taking Gibraltar, the UK would have been in a fine mess. Even without that -- and without a single German boot on Egyptian soil -- shutting either Gibraltar or Suez by submarine interdiction would have drastic effects on the UK.
Yeah. Churchill seemed to have a tendency to ignore geography. He didn't do too well in predicting Ottoman performance in Gallipolli, either.Unless the invader lands well north there was a minor obstacle called the Apennines
View attachment 821474
Over 9,000ft. Roughly 1/2 way along the length of Italy.
In the real war, how much stuff reached the Pacific and Australia through the Suez Canal, past Italy? Sailing to Malta was nasty and dangerous. Sailing past it gives the Italians more time to get into mischief. The route around the Cape of Good Hope sounds way safer, even if a bit longer.
I am not an expert on Spain and the Spanish Civil War. Franco negotiated with Germany and Italy on joining the war, and Hitler found him to be difficult. In his book Personality and Power, author Ian Kershaw claims that Franco admired Hitler and Mussolini. I am not so sure. He was grateful. Mussolini wanted to re-establish the Roman Empire. A quick look at a map of the old Roman Empire should make a Spanish nationalist like Franco, nervous. Franco was an experienced soldier who knew that if you show up on a battlefield with inadequate resources, you are getting beat. Were German communications and logistics up to a war in Russia? Franco was a homicidal right-wing dictator, but he was more into stability and order than reckless aggression. Google "franco letter to lbj". You will see that Franco was the the master of the "Please f*ck off" letter. The reasons for Spain staying out of WWII are really obvious, especially to a battle hardened soldier like Franco.
IIRC, Churchill had never been to Australia, Singapore or Japan. I might be wrong and that he may have passed through as a war correspondent in the early 1900s, but not as Fort Lord of the Admiralty (1911-1915), Exchequer (1924-29) or PM (1940-45). Churchill exclaimed surprise when told of Singapore's defences of lack thereof, when as Exchequer he funded the project. His seemingly willful ignorance (and racial bias?) of Japan's growing strength and ambitions likely saw Britain run straight into war with Japan. Why else would you send two capital ships and four small destroyers to deter the might of Japan. Now, it's not all Churchill, as in the 1930s Australia was desperately trying to build diplomatic and economic ties with Japan and was asking Britain to join their efforts, but was rebuffed by the British PM of the time. Had Britain taken the time to understand Japan things might have been different. If Italy is neutral, perhaps.Yeah. Churchill seemed to have a tendency to ignore geography. He didn't do too well in predicting Ottoman performance in Gallipolli, either.
Perhaps our best chance of Italian neutrality in 1939-45 is for Britain and France to go to war and defeat Italy in 1935. But the treaty ending this earlier war had better not be a humiliation or bankrupting of Italy, as that will drive them into Hitler's arms.Keeping Italy neutral might be harder than it first seems.
1935 Abyssinian Crisis when Italy invades Ethiopia. Heightens the risk of war in the region.
Without a clear Med, Australian foodstuffs would have to go around Good Hope. Another benefit of Suez was the ANZAC and Indian troops fed into North Africa -- admittedly irrelevant if the Italians don't invade Egypt, but at the same time important for operations in Syria against the Vichy French, or stocking up the home islands? Or, if the Italians stay neutral, those troops could build up in the UK and present a danger to the Germans.
In practice it wasn't a problem. All it meant was the mix of sources was changed to draw less from the from the ME and more from the Americas and West Indies. The Abadan refinery owned by Anglo Iranian Oil Company then became the major supplier for the war in the ME and FE.Then too there's Persian Gulf oil which, if Suez is cut, will have to do the long haul around Africa, again, depleting tonnage not only from sinkings but also sheer usage, because a tanker can't be in two places at once.
There was a thread on the Axis History site last year discussing what would happen if Franco did agree to join the Axis. Not as simple as it might first appear. There is some interesting material in amongst the 115 posts on the subject, but you need to pick it out from the bad tempered stuff. Things like the difficulies with logistics (rail guages, lack of routes through the Pyrenees, need for food important Spain etc etc.And also, you don't need on pinch both the nostrils in the Med, either end will do a lot of good for the Axis. Gibraltar would be the better option as it deprives the Brits of an Atlantic-facing base. I know Franco was not very interested, and he knew better than anyone how tired Spain was of war, but had he allowed transit of German troops, the Brits may well have been stuffed.
Cutting the Med, with or without Italy's involvement, may have been a better option than trying to cut Atlantic routes, especially when America was more isolationist. By mid-1941, not so much.
Force Z at Singapore was much less Churchill and more the Admiralty as part of a change of tack between Aug & Oct 1941. See Boyd "The Royal Navy in Eastern Waters" p296IIRC, Churchill had never been to Australia, Singapore or Japan. I might be wrong and that he may have passed through as a war correspondent in the early 1900s, but not as Fort Lord of the Admiralty (1911-1915), Exchequer (1924-29) or PM (1940-45). Churchill exclaimed surprise when told of Singapore's defences of lack thereof, when as Exchequer he funded the project. His seemingly willful ignorance (and racial bias?) of Japan's growing strength and ambitions likely saw Britain run straight into war with Japan. Why else would you send two capital ships and four small destroyers to deter the might of Japan. Now, it's not all Churchill, as in the 1930s Australia was desperately trying to build diplomatic and economic ties with Japan and was asking Britain to join their efforts, but was rebuffed by the British PM of the time. Had Britain taken the time to understand Japan things might have been different. If Italy is neutral, perhaps.
With the Germans grinded themselves to death in Russia, with the USA onside from Dec 41, and lastly without the efforts needed in the MTO the RN and FAA may see some of their aircraft programs Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Barracuda, Firefly and Firebrand) move ahead at a faster pace. Either way, HMS Furious aside, it won't be Gladiators on the remaining fast fleets, as they cannot fit onto the Ark Royal or Illustrious class lifts. For the PTO, I'd like to see a Skua Mk 2 that's equal to the USN's Dauntless.What sort of aircraft would the Royal Navy be using off its carriers? Sea Gladiators and Fulmars would be no match for Zeroes.
The Skua is remarkably close to the Dauntless in some aspects of performance. The big deficiencies are bomb load and range. I would take the Dauntless' twin .50s over the Skua's four .303s.With the Germans grinded themselves to death in Russia, with the USA onside from Dec 41, and lastly without the efforts needed in the MTO the RN and FAA may see some of their aircraft programs Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Barracuda, Firefly and Firebrand) move ahead at a faster pace. Either way, HMS Furious aside, it won't be Gladiators on the remaining fast fleets, as they cannot fit onto the Ark Royal or Illustrious class lifts. For the PTO, I'd like to see a Skua Mk 2 that's equal to the USN's Dauntless.
I'm going to trigger some teasing here for my Skua fandom, but a squadron of Skuas on each of HMS Formidable and Illustrious off Ceylon in April 1942 were just the ticket to punch holes in Nagumo's poorly-defended Kido Butai. Hermes was too small for the Skua, unless we ditch all her Swordfish - in fact I don't think she ever operated a monoplane carrier aircraft before her loss.The Skua is remarkably close to the Dauntless in some aspects of performance. The big deficiencies are bomb load and range. I would take the Dauntless' twin .50s over the Skua's four .303s.
Definitely not in aesthetics.The Skua is remarkably close to the Dauntless in some aspects of performance…
There's really no comparison on anything. The Dauntless is smaller, faster, flies higher and longer, with heavier guns and more than twice the bombload.Definitely not in aesthetics.
Once, just once, I would like somebody to come up with the Mission that a Dauntless actually carried the 1 x 726kg bomb + 2 x 147kg bomb load.The Dauntless is smaller, faster, flies higher and longer, with heavier guns and more than twice the bombload.