#stg 44 wrote:Given the huge US component in the North African campaign from the Torch Landings on there is a lot more than just 'glad to have helped'.
Not saying that at all, without the British the US couldn't have fought in Europe. They couldn't have won by themselves in 1942-43 in North Africa either. The victory in North Africa was a combined effort that required both the British and US; my point is without the US the British would not have won it on their own in 1943. The US contribution was vital to wrapping it up in 1943 and then moving on to Sicily. The British had limited resources and different political pull than the US did. Without the US in combination with all the other Allied powers its unlikely that the Allies could have won in 1945 or potential in 1946 or potentially at all if things play out a certain way; victory certainly depended on Lend-Lease, without which the British would have had to call it quits in 1941-42 and the Soviets would be in major famine by 1943, but it was US manpower and equipped military units was necessary to support the British to achieve dominance in the air and penetrate Fortress Europe; the British army had topped out at ~50 divisions due to the investments needed for the Bomber Offensive and the RAF was topped out manpower-wise too. Without US manpower to field 6,000 bombers in Europe, mostly strategic bombers mind you by 1944 the British could not field that, nor achieve the effect that they had on their own even with unlimited LL. So US contributions were vital, but only in conjunction with all Allied armies that complimented one another.Michael Kenny wrote:#stg 44 wrote:Given the huge US component in the North African campaign from the Torch Landings on there is a lot more than just 'glad to have helped'.
Your point of view is obvious. You think your WW2 contribution was far more important than any other nations contribution. I believe you are fooling yourself.
Arrant nonsense. You just can not concieve a scenario where 'your' contribution is not decisive.stg 44 wrote:; victory certainly depended on Lend-Lease, without which the British would have had to call it quits in 1941-42 and the Soviets would be in major famine by 1943,.
Okay? Its clear you've got a pretty big chip on your shoulder about this; I'm not sure that the impact of Lend-Lease is debateable though. Still, this scenario postulates that LL is in effect just not US military participation; in that case Britain can eventually win in North Africa if it contributes all of its offensive ground strength to that theater and lot more of its shipping and air power, which means basically any other historical operation that Britain took, namely the Normandy and South France landings, can't happen. Plus its questionable whether even with LL Britain can get the necessary strength to Algeria and Morocco in the same time frame that Torch happened, get the same reaction out of the Vichy French that the US forced did historically, or have the necessary strength to occupy everything that the combined forces did West of Tunisia historically, especially if the Vichy French are not willing to switch sides like they did historically. Eventually the British can just contribute more manpower and material to the theater to prevail, but not as much as quickly as they could in conjunction with the US, so it takes longer and probably into 1944 before they could land in Sicily.Michael Kenny wrote:Arrant nonsense. You just can not concieve a scenario where 'your' contribution is not decisive.stg 44 wrote:; victory certainly depended on Lend-Lease, without which the British would have had to call it quits in 1941-42 and the Soviets would be in major famine by 1943,.
Thats rich considering you are the one claiming 'his' contribution was the decisive one in WW2.stg 44 wrote: Okay? Its clear you've got a pretty big chip on your shoulder about this
I am not picking a fight. You are with silly assertions that the outcome of WW2 was decided by the US intervention and without the US the UK & The Soviets had no chance of victory.stg 44 wrote: Why are you picking a fight over this?
The attack into Tunisia was by 11th and 36th Brigades, not US forces.stg 44 wrote:Without the US moving into Tunisia the Afrika Korps and Italians don't have to retreat as quickly or as fully and can make a stand.
Do you read your links, which mention 15th and 21st Panzer and 164th Division which are German, plus Operation Capri in the run-up.As it was historically the British only faced the Italians at Mareth, not the combined Axis forces, so could probably be stopped.
Perhaps the German occupation of Vichy France had more of an impact?It was the US presence that really collapsed Vichy military resistance.[/
The US forces were there primarily to deter Spain. However the British did not believe that Spain would move against Morocco and would have not left such large forces there.Without the US forces the British would have to detach a major part of their 1st army to garrison Morocco and Algeria
No, there's roughly another 4 Corps in the UK. The US did not have more than 1 Corps in action until late in 1943.Its not even a question of that, just that without the US forces to get a similar force level the entire British ground army in the European theater would pretty much have to be thrown into North Africa
See above - Sicily and Italy are part of Europe.without the British the US couldn't have fought in Europe.
Okay two brigades of the primary strike force, but if you'll note from my earlier post there were several other lands of >30k US forces in Morocco and Western Algeria. Only one of the landing forces was with British forces, IIRC Blade force.Aber wrote:Oh dear
The attack into Tunisia was by 11th and 36th Brigades, not US forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia_C ... ec1942.jpg
They were stripped off to fight the US forces of the British 1st army at Kasserine, which is when Monty was able to beat the Italians by themselves.Aber wrote: Do you read your links, which mention 15th and 21st Panzer and 164th Division which are German, plus Operation Capri in the run-up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Medenine
Anton was in reaction to the landings in Algeria and the surrender/non-resistance was pre-negotiated.Aber wrote:Perhaps the German occupation of Vichy France had more of an impact?It was the US presence that really collapsed Vichy military resistance.[/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Anton
The Eastern Task Force—aimed at Algiers—was commanded by Lieutenant-General Kenneth Anderson and consisted of two brigades from the British 78th and the U.S. 34th Infantry Divisions, along with two British Commando units (No.1 and No. 6 Commando), totaling 20,000 troops. During the landing phase the force was to be commanded by U.S. Major General Charles W. Ryder, commander of the 34th Division, as it was felt that a U.S.-led invasion would be more acceptable to the French defenders than one led by the British; many British troops wore American uniform, for the same reason. Naval forces were commanded by Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Burrough.
They would have left some forces and that all comes out of whatever can be used against French resistance in Algeria and the Axis in Tunisia.Aber wrote:The US forces were there primarily to deter Spain. However the British did not believe that Spain would move against Morocco and would have not left such large forces there.Without the US forces the British would have to detach a major part of their 1st army to garrison Morocco and Algeria
How many could the British realistically remove from the Home Isle politically? 1-2 maybe. Even not counting all the occupation forces, IIRC the US forces were over 70k to the British 50K in Algeria/Tunisia, nor the air power and naval component, the British are going all in on their capacity for offensive action for invading Algeria. Did they have the necessary shipping to pull it off on their own? How about making up for the lack of US air power? The British could have replaced the 4 divisions in that 1 US corps, but at the same time they would likely have not gotten that French corps that switched sides either, and had to replace the >70K US ground troops in whatever they were doing while at the same time providing all the naval and air power, which I don't know where its coming from. I'm not saying it wasn't there, I just don't know where its coming from.Aber wrote:No, there's roughly another 4 Corps in the UK. The US did not have more than 1 Corps in action until late in 1943.Its not even a question of that, just that without the US forces to get a similar force level the entire British ground army in the European theater would pretty much have to be thrown into North Africa
Sure, but the landing in Sicily and Italy was a function of US shipping, airpower, and ground power. The British historically fought there alongside the US enabling it with its contributions:Aber wrote:See above - Sicily and Italy are part of Europe.without the British the US couldn't have fought in Europe.
In late 1944? They were the major component in the air in the Mediterranean in 1943 and were pretty critical to the speedy and successful conclusion of Tunisia, and the invasion of Italy (the majority of the casualties in Italy were American). Normandy could not have happened without the US, or Dragoon.Aber wrote: There is no doubt that the US played a major part of the war in Europe, but their build up was slow and only really became dominant in late 1944 and 1945.
It was. The UK could only afford staying in the war by US supplies, for which the UK paid until it simply ran out out money - by the spring of 1941... if the US does not introduce essentially free (or postponed payment if you will) supplies to the UK, it simply could not fight a war any longer.Michael Kenny wrote:Perhaps you should stop and think before posting insulting assertions that the UK was prostrate and helpless without US intervention.
In other words, they were loosing.The UK withstood its darkest hour in 1940 without any US help and so did the Soviets in 1941.
Modern warfare requires a lot of supply and resources, and at least in the case of the UK, they did not have it, nor they could buy it from abroad (predominantly from the US) once they run out of money. Britain's only offensive tool it placed all its hope and resources in was Bomber Command, which simply could not operate with US aviation gas supplies - 90% of the RAF avgas was from the US, for example. No US avgas, no Bomber Command.Michael Kenny wrote:If they come back from those near disasters it is absurd to try and claim they were then incapable of waging modern warfare with their own resources.
I belive history has judged the losers to be the Germans. They simply did not dare to take on the RN.Kurfürst wrote: In other words, they were loosing.
There is a thing called credit. The UK word was good enough for others to supply her with what she wanted and their promise to pay was never doubted. Germany on the other hand had to invade other countries to finance her war. The word of Hitler/Germany was worthless and thus credit was a problem for them.Kurfürst wrote:
Modern warfare requires a lot of supply and resources, and at least in the case of the UK, they did not have it, nor they could buy it from abroad (predominantly from the US) once they run out of money..
Indeed history has made its judgment, just look at an 1939 map of the British Empire for confirmation.Michael Kenny wrote:I belive history has judged the losers to be the Germans.Kurfürst wrote: In other words, they were loosing.
True, and neither they care too much. It was left to the U-boots. After Dunkerque Britain was on the floor, they knew it and the Germans knew it, and couldn't come back in any other form than as a US auxiliary force that is useful to tie up some German units. As for the Germans, they already decided in July 1940 that USSR and try to crush it before the US would enter the war.Michael Kenny wrote:They simply did not dare to take on the RN.
Credit wasn't as much a problem with Germany, as she had the whole of Europe, and at that time, the USSR, to trade with her. The problem was trading that the largest industrial power of the world, the USA, pursued a clear anti-German foreign policy at the time and refused to trade.Michael Kenny wrote: There is a thing called credit. The UK word was good enough for others to supply her with what she wanted and their promise to pay was never doubted. Germany on the other hand had to invade other countries to finance her war. The word of Hitler/Germany was worthless and thus credit was a problem for them.
