WI the Torch landings were further east per British preference, & North Africa cleared earlier?

[raharris1973]

Stevep:
Historically Operation Torch was a compromise with the US insisting on landings on the Atlantic coastline of Morocco for fear that landings further east would possibly see the forces cut off if Hitler was able to persuade Franco to join the Axis and hence possibly close the Med to allied forces and supplies. This dragged the British landings westwards as well. Originally Britain wanted to land further east including IIRC in N Tunisia. This would have made it much more difficult for the Axis to occupy Tunisia so you could have seen most/all of FNA liberated while Rommel and his Italian allies were retreating from 2nd El Alamein. In that case you could have seen N Africa cleared a few months earlier. The down side of this would have been the POW haul would have been less as those German forces sent to occupy Tunisia OTL won't have gone along with similar air and logistical resources savings for then as well. Also the forces that landed in FNA wouldn't have had the battle experience they gained OTL and exposing some of the problems which could occur later in a more dangerous situation.

What if the Americans relaxed their fears about a possible Spanish entry at this late date, and agreed to forego Atlantic/Morocco landings, and allowed the west, center, and east task forces, per the British preferences to cover all the Algerian ports and possibly Bizerte in Tunisia, putting the Allies in position to prevent Von Armin's Germans from occupying Tunisia, and trapping Rommel and the Italians in Libya?

I imagine Rommel and the Italians in Libya would be toast, except for any lucky evacuees, by Jan 1943, or Feb 1943, at a stretch. What do the Anglo-Americans do next? Invade Sicily in March or April 1943?

But is Sicily higher risk, with the Anglo-Americans facing Italian reinforcements plus Von Arnim's forces moved in and digging in and fortifying the island since November 9th 1942? Does giving a large joint Axis force time to prepare and fortify in Sicily instead of grinding it down and capturing it in Tunisia make it likely to repulse any Allied invasion? Or just make a Sicily campaign harder fought? Or lead to bypassing of Sicily to a Sardinia-Corsica approach to Italy?

 

[WolfBear]

Or lead to bypassing of Sicily to a Sardinia-Corsica approach to Italy?

Did the Western Allies actually have the necessary logistics to pull this off in 1943?

 

[raharris1973]

Did the Western Allies actually have the necessary logistics to pull this off in 1943?

Apparently so:

The war ended in Sardinia in September 1943, with the withdrawal of the Wehrmachtto Corsica following the surrender of Italy to the Allies under the Armistice of Cassibile, and the island, together with Southern Italy, became free. Allied forces landed on Sardinia on 14 September 1943 and the last German troops were expelled on the 18th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sardinia#Kingdom_of_Italy

In July 1943, following the imprisonment of Mussolini, 12,000 German troops came to Corsica. They formally took over the occupation on 9 September 1943, the day after the armistice between Italy and the Allies. Following the Allied landings in Sicily and the Italian surrender, these German troops were joined by the remnants of the Africa Division of the German army, reconstituted as the 90th Panzergrenadier Division with about 40,000 men,[20] which crossed over from Sardinia. They were accompanied by some Italian forces. They faced Resistance forces which had been asked to occupy the mountains to prevent Axis troop movements between the Corsican coasts, as well as a subset of Italian troops that allied with them but whose contribution was hampered as their leadership was ambivalent.[21] The German forces retreated from Bonifacio towards the Northern harbor of Bastia. Elements of the reconstituted French I Corps, from the 4th Moroccan Mountain Division, landed in Ajaccio to counter the German movement and the Germans evacuated Bastia by 4 October 1943, leaving behind 700 dead and 350 POWs.

After Corsica was thus liberated from the forces of the Third Reich,

....at least by September-October - in OTL.

 

[PsihoKekec]

They wouldn't bypass Sicily to go after Sardinia, because they needed to fully secure the Gibraltar-Suez route. Also landings in Northern Tunisia could be hit by airstrikes and torpedo boat raids, with Allies only learning large scale amphibious landings this could turn into beach head too far. Not to mention that with American forces being totally inexperienced, it was better for them to face the Germans where their logistics were badly strained.

 

[stevep]

They wouldn't bypass Sicily to go after Sardinia, because they needed to fully secure the Gibraltar-Suez route. Also landings in Northern Tunisia could be hit by airstrikes and torpedo boat raids, with Allies only learning large scale amphibious landings this could turn into beach head too far. Not to mention that with American forces being totally inexperienced, it was better for them to face the Germans where their logistics were badly strained.

Actually to really clear the Med route from air attack you need both islands, Sicily and Sardinia. OTL the purpose of Operation Mincemeat was to persuade the Germans that the next targets would be Sardinia and Crete rather than Sicily, although the main threat was to Crete which triggered Hitler's fears about a Balkans campaign and hence the threat to the Polesti oilfields.

In terms of air or torpedo boats how much would the Italians have had in position to do much in the time before the forces are landed? Or are you assuming a scenario where the Vichy forces oppose the landings strongly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat