• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Italy leaves the Axis?

Whatever the case, the non-entry of Italy sends some rather large ripples towards East Asia.

Feels that'd make the Pacific Front a questions of "how quickly can more soldiers & equipment be rushed into Asia" VS "how quickly can Japan overrun European colonies so Britain has to fight its way back in & struggle badly" (esp. as Japan will hope Britain will give up sooner than later if it gets too hard).
 
Feels that'd make the Pacific Front a questions of "how quickly can more soldiers & equipment be rushed into Asia" VS "how quickly can Japan overrun European colonies so Britain has to fight its way back in & struggle badly" (esp. as Japan will hope Britain will give up sooner than later if it gets too hard).
Well, the first question is "Does Japan still take over FIC, or attempt to?"

If they do so, then there's an AIF or two sitting around with not much on, up to 2 NZ divisions and several Indian formations that were providing muscle in East Africa, even without GB's contingent. The RN doesn't lose forces to Italian action (Valiant, QE) or indeed to quite so many German interventions in the Med (Crete). Moreover, the bulk of the RN submarine force was, I understand, designed for the Far East but dragged to the Med - where it wasn't best suited - in an attempt to interdict supply runs to Tripoli. Plus, being able to run supplies, men and material through the Med, rather than around the Cape, means demand is far lower. The RAF still needs to defend britain, but there's no Desert Air Force, no losses over Greece. They may be spaffed up the wall in fighter sweeps over the low countries mind.

All things being equal, if the Japanese are allowed into FIC, Britain has far more scope to send men and material to deter further action. This includes commanders with a bit more gumption than those on the ground in OTL. Even if Japan catch them on the hop, they're in a far better position to hold Burma and perhaps the Malay barrier.

If they aren't allowed into FIC, then Japan has two options. Try to interdict the supply lines from Indochina on the ground, or fight their way in. If they're forced into the latter, then all the dice are in the air. They can't go for Malaya and the DEI until they've got the bases of FIC. They can't give the British and Americans too much warning, or they'll be prepared. They can't strike the US Pacific Fleet until the Kido Butai is ready. Discussion on the Old Country has always suggested that Pearl Harbor can't be brought forward by more than about a week.

So does Japan move at all?
 
No Italian involvement also means no Battle of Taranto. That wouldn't stop planning for Pearl Harbor, but it might remove some expertise on what it's like to perform such a raid.
Unless there's a Wilhelmshaven version, yeah.
 
No North African front does bring into question what exactly the British are doing if not fighting there. Stalin is going to be demanding they actively fight somewhere and Churchill was trying to get involved in the Balkans from basically the get go. I imagine no North African front means he is pushing for an invasion of Norway or pressuring Greece to end its neutrality or something.

Also the RN's going to be keeping substantial forces in or near the Med as a matter of course.

I can't imagine any of the prospective options for a British incursion in 1940-42 ending in anything less than a disaster but they were somewhat aware of this OTL.

The big butterflies probably come somewhat later in the war, North Africa was where the WAllies learned to fight effectively, tested out equipment, realised the need for tactical air support and through attrition got a leadership cadre that knew what the hell its doing and cut its teeth in amphibious landings and airbourne drops. Its unlikely Alt Normandy would fail if its got the same resources as OTL but just about everything would go worse and at much higher cost. The Germans would also have many hundreds of thousands less troops garrisoning the Balkans or sitting in POW camps, that's probably going to make a difference somewhere.
 
There wouldn't be that many options for the UK, between 1940-42. Invading France is a non-starter - Norway is a possibility, but the Germans can pour reinforcements into the country quicker than the UK. Greece and Turkey will stay out of the fighting as long as possible, probably allowing the Germans to kick off the invasion of Russia earlier than OTL. Churchill may keep looking for ways to get at Germany, but as long as the US stays out it's unlikely he'll find anything game-changing. Even a landing in France, with the USSR in worse trouble than OTL, would be chancy.

Ironically, Japan might stay out of the war in ATL. Britain will look stronger because the troops that fought in North Africa will be free for deployment to the Far East. Hong Kong is still doomed, but Singapore and Burma may go the other way (particularly if there's a better CO in place.) Japan may think better of starting the war, or lose quicker if it does.

Chris
 
Dark thought, does a lack of North Africa and the need to 'do something' (especially when the Soviets are under assault) lead to more and earlier mass strategic bombing?

It seems unlikely the British Army is going to send men to Russia to give a hand there, though the AH story possibilities of that seem enormous.
 
Back
Top