Where did the Germans fail at operation Torch?

T_Killer · Post by **T_Killer** » 12 Jan 2006 11:14

Me and my friend are working on a project for school, and we need to know:

Where did the Germans fail at operation Torch?

What were the major causes of Germany's defeat in operation Torch?

Any help is welcome...

Lupo Solitario · Post by **Lupo Solitario** » 12 Jan 2006 16:55

In which sense you call Torch a german defeat?

german mistakes...let's see:

-having not occupied french north africa in 1940-42 and having denied italians to do it
-having no developed an oceanic aeronaval force to deny allied fleet to approach african coasts
-having no supplied modern weapons to Vichy forces
-having been joked by allied intelligence to believe to a landing near Dakar and not in Maroc
-having not given priority to Med theatre needs to close that front before american intervention

As you can see, we are largely into what-if kingdom...

On the other side:
-Axis forces reached in deny allied forces to take Tunis in december. The improvised axis task force made a sort of miracle in creating the tunisine front while axis aeronaval forces made all the possible to attack allied logistic supplies to algerine harbours.

T_Killer · Post by **T_Killer** » 16 Jan 2006 12:10

Ok, thanks, does anyone have any websites or so, where i can find more detailled info on these reasons of failure??

FB · Post by FB » 16 Jan 2006 14:29

T_Killer wrote:Ok, thanks, does anyone have any websites or so, where i can find more detailled info on these reasons of failure??

But excuse me, in what sense do you label as "failure" operation Torch?

If you mean because the Axis ultimately had to leave North Africa, well, then all Germany's (and Axis aswell) participation to WWII was a failure since they lost it.

But as far as the operation is concerned (build up a credible and battle ready force in Tunisia more or less overnight) I wouldn't consider it a failure.

Best regards

Lupo Solitario · Post by **Lupo Solitario** » 16 Jan 2006 15:32

neither me , and this was the meaning of my answer...

Let's see it this way: it's 1942, you're Hitler and you want to make Operation Torch fail. What can you do?
Occupy French North Africa before Americans do it? You can't for political reasons and with which forces BTW? The main bulk of your troops is at Stalingrad and the few troops you got in Africa are blocked in Egypt...
Try to destroy Allied Forces before they land in NA? With which fleet? You have no one!
Land another army in Africa after allied landings and beat them on battlefield? and where do you take that army?(see precedent points...)

all you can do is try to use the few reserves you got to take a stronghold (Tunis) to cover shoulders to your egyptian army and wait and see
(Note, if the egyptian army can't beat english forces in a short time or, worst, is defeated, you will be forced to retire in the shortest defensible range...)

Any alternative is welcome....[/i]

Terranix · Post by **Terranix** » 31 Jan 2006 14:47

Torch could have been made a hell of a lot more hard going for the Allies if Hitler had demanded a robust resistance from Vichy forces. As things stood the French were largely unsure as to whether they should fight or not and thus often either didn't bother or went about things in a half-arsed manner.

Bronsky · Post by **Bronsky** » 31 Jan 2006 15:10

Terranix wrote:Torch could have been made a hell of a lot more hard going for the Allies if Hitler had demanded a robust resistance from Vichy forces.

Hitler - and Vichy - demanded just that. When they got it, as in Morocco, the result was that French air units were virtually wiped out, lots of French ships sunk (the French navy needed no prompting to resist an umpteenth unprovoked attack), and the ground resistance in jeopardy.

Essentially, Hitler did not trust Vichy enough to let the French field a real, modernized army so he allowed limited rearmament but that was that. In such circumstances, it's difficult to imagine how the French could have stopped the Allies, even assuming that they had put up a spirited resistance everywhere. Delayed the Allies, yes. Stopped them from conquering Morocco and Algeria, no.

Terranix wrote:As things stood the French were largely unsure as to whether they should fight or not and thus often either didn't bother or went about things in a half-arsed manner.

The French had several problems. In no particular order:
1. Their military system was a very top-down, control affair so local French commanders were used to receiving detailed orders. In the wake of Torch, they received confused and usually conflicting orders, although initially the authorities unambiguously ordered resistance everywhere.
2. The French hated the Germans. Since 1940, a significant portion of French military personnel (particularly career officers, including practically every officer in the Navy) hated the British as well: the 1940 "betrayal" (both sides accused the other of betrayal), Mers el-Kébir, Dakar, Syria-Lebanon, Madagascar, various attacks on French convoys, bombing of French cities, years of Vichy propaganda, etc. But the large majority still considered the British as being basically on the same side and against the Germans. Finally, the overwhelming majority of the French deeply admired and felt profund affinity with the Americans. All of this to say that it would be extremely difficult to keep French troops fighting Americans for long.
3. Germany occupied Vichy France, which was a watershed moment for many in the Vichy armed forces. It ended the fiction of an independent and neutral (Vichy) France, the Germans had breached the armistice and secured Pétain, so it was very difficult to accept fighting for them afterwards. Most of the Vichy army, which had remained "loyalist" throughout Torch, rallied _after_ that German occupation.

See the example of the Tunisia garrison: the commanders were initially confused, not really knowing whether they should go with the Americans or their government, but after Vichy France was occupied the overwhelming consensus was "ok, we're back in the war on the Allies' side".

All of this to say that for Germany to rely on the French means forsaking the best way of defending that territory i.e. German assets. Vichy was a figleaf for the Germans, nothing more.

Lupo Solitario · Post by **Lupo Solitario** » 31 Jan 2006 20:14

I add that Vichy was NOT formally a german ally and germans had not the right to give orders to french

Bronsky · Post by **Bronsky** » 01 Feb 2006 10:49

Lupo Solitario wrote:I add that Vichy was NOT formally a german ally and germans had not the right to give orders to french

...though technically the French didn't need German orders to defend themselves against aggression. In fact, Vichy issued these orders without any German prompting. As I wrote, this made very little difference because Vichy French forces proved unable to put up a successful resistance.

Benoit Douville · Post by **Benoit Douville** » 19 Feb 2006 04:25

I agree, I also don't consider Operation Torch a German defeat. Patton was furious at the chaos and disorganization on the beachhead on November 8 1942 by the U.S. Army. On November 23 1942, Panzerarmee Afrika reaches El Agheila, the starting-point of its great counter-offensive that began on January 21 1942.

Regards