Thank you for straightening me out on that. My own sources were somewhat suspect.
It depends on what the comparison is made to. Relative to a first world railway net, what's in French North Africa isn't very good, but for colonial ones, they are.
Thank you for straightening me out on that. My own sources were somewhat suspect.
It depends on what the comparison is made to. Relative to a first world railway net, what's in French North Africa isn't very good, but for colonial ones, they are.
It depends on what the comparison is made to. Relative to a first world railway net, what's in French North Africa isn't very good, but for colonial ones, they are.
2 Questions.
1 Will the Australian Corps be replaces (protem) by I Canadian Corps
2 Will we eventually see a 1st Australian field Army?
Astrodragon, You have mentioned Sterlings and Wellington bombers for the RAF so far. Are you teasing us? What are you hiding in the Hanger for winter 1941?. Mancheste'rs with Fairy P24 engines Prehaps or upgraded Sterlings with the same engine (OTL Shorts did propose at least two upgrades to the MoAP) or even my favourite, the Miles X plane.
The issue of where the US carriers are is going to get contentious.
At the moment, its as OTL - some supporting the fleet in the Pacific, some supporting AS work in the Atlantic.
Now they dont need them as much in the Atlantic TTL, as the number of CVE and conversions is rising steadily. The issue is, is the USN actually learning from the USN? They have observers (and probably even a few 'Canadian' officers, but will they listen??
They didnt in OTL regarding the AS tecniques (thankyou Admiral King), so will they absorb the lessons of the need for heavy strikes and probbaly pairing up carriers?? The USN, at its top levels, had a definate fatal case of head-up-ass before WW2, they were real masters of it...
I'd assumed that since it was handling things like the iron ore trade that the rail lines were fairly good - you cant run things like ore trains on ramshakle tracks.
In any case, the additional load isnt going to be huge - the bulk stuff wont unload, it will carry on to Alex or the canal. Basing one of the British Corops in Tunis/Tripoli means it gets supplies and equipment via rail, as do the French, so the additional load on the rail net isnt massive.
There are also Naval issues, as now the Japanese are much closer to Singapore they wish to use it only as a forward base, making Ceylon their main centre of operations.
They would also like at least one northern Australian port improved as a base for submarine operations.
Having looked some more, the problems were capacity based. The signalling wasn't designed for large volumes of trains to be run and the yard capacity to keep large numbers of locomotives running weren't there.
Well, I can see an argument for high value material and troops to be unloaded so as to avoid the Straits of Sicily. I also wouldn't want to send high value fast merchant ships through there either.
This is a going to cause major political fallout, as it basically invalidates the entire Imperial strategy for containing Japan. The inter-war investment in "Fortress Singapore" was truly enormous - the facilities required to support the fleet they are planning on sending there essentially don't exist anywhere else in the British Empire east of Alexandria. From what I can gather, they can't base the fleet they're talking about to Ceylon, as it can't cope with that many capital ships.
The other option I suspect they'll pursue is to take inspiration from the German u-boat pens and upgrade the submarine facilities at Singapore to resist attack from the air.
Might this not prompt the IJA and co to jump the gun and attack early by trying to pre-empt the Empire's forces getting there.
?Will the butterflies prevent the sinking of those couple of ship carrying Brewsters to the DEI?The USA starts delivery of Brewster Buffalo fighters to the DEI. These fighters are no longer considered a first-rank fighter by the USA, and has now been completely replaced in the USN by the more powerful Wildcat.
The issue of where the US carriers are is going to get contentious.
At the moment, its as OTL - some supporting the fleet in the Pacific, some supporting AS work in the Atlantic.
Now they dont need them as much in the Atlantic TTL, as the number of CVE and conversions is rising steadily. The issue is, is the USN actually learning from the USN? They have observers (and probably even a few 'Canadian' officers, but will they listen??
They didnt in OTL regarding the AS tecniques (thankyou Admiral King), so will they absorb the lessons of the need for heavy strikes and probbaly pairing up carriers?? The USN, at its top levels, had a definate fatal case of head-up-ass before WW2, they were real masters of it...