Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Mediterranean Campaign Best Live Action Exercise for Allies

Discussion in 'North Africa and the Mediterranean' started by merdiolu, May 24, 2013.

  1. merdiolu

    merdiolu Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Istanbul Turkey
    More I look Mediterranean more I am convinced that it was a necessary campaign and beyond that. In 1940 when major fighting ended in Western Europe and British Army evacuated from Dunkirk they were still short of necessary experience , training. They lost all of their equipment. And US Army did not even exist beyond 100.000 men. Any attempt to return Europe was bound to fail between 1940-1942 because neither British / Commonweath Army nor US Army were as experienced , trained and drilled as Germans. There was no planning , or logistical preparation for a such undertaking in this period. Any time they attempted with half baked preparation with insufficent forces like they did in Balkans in 1941 or Dieppe in 1942 it ended up with defeat. Allies needed a battlefield where they found out what worked and what did not from a quick but hard , brutal , Darwinian way without any vital risk to Grand Strategy of Allies ( Contrary to belief I think Panzer Armee Africa was never strong to conquer Egypt or Middle East nor was properly supplied. OKW priorities were elsewhere ) while tying as much Axis troops as possible. North Africa and Eastern Africa provided this perfectly. Campaign in Egypt and Libya made British/Commonwealth Armed Forces to realize their shortcomings , incompatent commanders , faulty weapons and equipment and create necessary tactical/strategic skill to defeat Germans on battlefield. Same with US Army. Defeat of 2nd US Corps in Kasserine Pass was probably benefit Allies more in long term. Unskilled commanders were sacked , proper air/land support doctrines were created and amphibious land experiences/skills were developed to a greater degree with TORCH , HUSKY and AVALANCHE.

    In this way sticking and clearing North Africa and then carrying war to Italian mainland benefitted Allies cause more than grand strategy. While protecting their powerbase in Med. and causing as much discomfort as possible for Axis , Allied troops and commanders honed their skills from amateurism to skilled warriors who defeated Germans in Normandy in 1944. Otherwise US Army commanded Lloyd Fredenhall or British Army under the command of Neill Ritchie might had tried to invade France in 1942 with Honey tanks , insufficent air support and green untested troops without proper logistical support and amphibious landing confidence. (imagine the outcome) So can we conclude that Erwin Rommel and his Afrikakorps or Albert Kesselring were best trainers for Allies ?

    Waiting your comments....
     
  2. mconrad

    mconrad New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't think you set it up exactly right. The alternative to Torch in late 1942 was not an invasion of France in 1942, it was an invasion of France in 1943, by mostly British forces.

    In regard to the necessity of training up the troops -- yeah, maybe for the Americans. But the British who came to Torch from the UK were good. That's one of the sources of inter-Allied friction. In North Africa the British found the US forces so bad they wondered if they could ever win the war.

    So an invasion of France in 1943 didn't need practice in North Africa. The 1943 invasion would have been mostly British, who didn't particularly need more training.
     

Share This Page