Operation Torch - Invading France in Africa to beat Germany (with Vince O'Hara)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Today we take a look at the Allied landings in French North Africa with the help of returning author and historian Vince O'Hara.
You can find some of his books here:
www.usni.org/p...
www.usni.org/p...
www.usni.org/p...
Free naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshi...
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/u...
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifelDrydock
Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Can you discuss or make a video about radar aided fighter vectoring on aircraft carriers in WWII?
Cheers, Drach! Have Jingles and your wife chatted about their time in SA?
Speaking of little-known amphibious landings, what about Operation Dragoon (a.k.a. Anvil)?
Is there a chance we could see a video discussing the minelayer cruisers SMS albatross? It's a rather strange vessel and I'd like a deeper understanding of what a minelayer cruiser does VS just a normal minelayer
Imagine all last-generation battleships survived WWII. Like the Iowas in the real-world, some years later they are brought back to life after serious upgrading, or unbuilt versions are laid down. You can choose between Iowa, Montana, Yamato, A-150, Lion, Vanguard, Sovietsky Soyuz, etc...
Conditions:
- Fully or partially nuclear powered
- Big gun supremacy (No missiles or having a very secundary role)
- Contemplated gun calibers and designs in real life (like the japanese 20 inch) are fair game
- Mass budget: 100.000 tons, unlimited cost
Make your ideal ultimate battleship whose main goal is not necessarily to be a practical weapon, but a scary one
I looked up the wiki for HMS Aurora and discover this fascinating quote:
'One notable member of crew was the actor Kenneth More, who used his theatre skills in his role as 'action broadcaster' to describe to the crew below decks via the public address system what was happening when the ship was in action'
Wikipedia, or any other " Wiki " is mostly leftist propaganda, my college professors warned the classes about using Wikipedia for research purposes, risking a failing grade on your paper. Use Encyclopedia Britanica or the equivalent quality if you want facts...
@@toserveman9265 Wikipedia can be good, you just need to check the sources.
I remember there being a study from a couple years back that showed that Encyclopedia Britannica was often wrong or underrepresented the facts at a rate comparable to Wikipedia. You're better off looking at primary sources but it can be a step to point you in the right direction.
@@toserveman9265 Um... what? How old are you? If you have even 1/4th of a brain left, wikipedia is an EXTREMELY useful source of unbiased information, more so than 99.9% of literally any news site on the planet. The stuff on biology, history and the sciences are about as good as a source of information on the internet will ever get. There have been many studies on this, and as the dude above me said, britannica had either the same or in most cases, a WORSE error rate when compared to the good wikipedia articles.
Its interesting how so many people hate wikipedia, yet use their own biases and subjective feelings to make judgements on what "correct information" is, while failing to do even surface level research on the subject. Guess thats confirmation bias at play ;)
@@jonnyj. You forget that facts have a well known liberal-bias.
I believe Dr Clarke once said something to this effect: if you have all naval historians agree on one interpretation, then something has gone wrong.
Always glad to hear a different point of view, and it was also nice to see Mr. O'Hara again here!
A lot of people would disagree with you RE the holocaust
@@Trux2010 I think people disagreeing was the core of his comment, disagreeing leads to questions arising, questions that wouldn’t be answered unless people disagreed. It’s a net win for the truth really.
@@Trux2010 Totally agree on that, however what I may have failed to mention is that it was a naval history-related quote. Far from me joking about people who lost their lives, on both sides.
I believe it was something related to the development of dreadnoughts from armoured cruisers instead of what would seem the 'natural' development from previous battleships.
I do feel like the reason Nelson's Victory vs Redoutable duel at Trafalgar doesn't get questioned is because only the British harp about that battle.
@@Trux2010 yeah - and they are liars and have a political agenda.
I've always had a soft spot for USS Ranger. Considered the bottom of the barrel and ignored until she was absolutely needed, but when she was called on she did what she needed to do. Can't really ask for any more than that.
You should read Operation Leader, when Ranger carried out an airstrike on German occupied Norway. Probably the only carrier borne airstrike by the USN in ETO
Isn't Ranger one of the very first purpose built carrier of the USN? But she was pretty flawed but somehow made it out well in the end.
_Makes me wonder though how she would fare if say the Germans somehow fielded their carrier._
@@alwayscurious3357 Graf Zeppelin was so horribly designed that Ranger would be a superior carrier overall even with being two knots slower.
@@bkjeong4302 Didn't Graf Zeppelin also had a horrid Air Group and was also way too heavily armed for her job?
Amen.
Small navy-oriented thing about OPERATION TORCH and the new AP ammo base fuze, the Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze (BDF), introduced in 1941.
The 16" Mark 8 AP shells used by USS MASSACHUSETTS against JEAN BART, hit it several times and actually sunk JEAN BART next to the deck, but this did not affect the single functional 380 mm 4-gun turret that the French warship kept on firing back at MASSACHUSETTS. This return fire, which never hit the continually maneuvering MASSACHUSETTS, only stopped when a 16" Mark 8 shell hit and ricocheted off of the upper edge of the barbette next to the 380 mm turret and the bent barbette upper edge jammed the turret in place, and by the time the turret was cut free by the turret crew using acetylene torches, the battle was over.
After the battle, a number of US Navy personnel inspected JEAN BART and discovered that, while most of the Mark 8 AP shells had worked properly, a rather large percentage, just under half in fact, had not done so, with either no explosion or a low-order (weak) explosion, or, in one case, just sitting on a deck and burning from its base plug ("deflagration"), which was unacceptable behavior, especially as this was now the only BDF being mass produced and available for any AP shells in the US Navy. An immediate crash study was started at the US Naval Proving Ground and other ammo-related Navy facilities to figure out what had gone wrong with the fuze, since this kind of behavior had never been observed in BDF prior to this that did not have obvious damage due to the armor impact or manufacturing defect, which few of the failed fuzes seemed to have. There was obviously a previously unknown design flaw in these fuzes that had to be found and fixed ASAP.
Due to the much higher oblique-angle and plate thickness test requirements (0.8-0.9-caliber Class "A" face-hardened plates and 35-40 degrees from right angles, depending on the exact type of, older from storage or brand new, Class "A" plate hit) for these new AP shells - 6" Mark 35 (new "light", but heavily-armored, cruisers), 8" Mark 19 (older, lightly-armored "Treaty" heavy cruisers) and Mark 21 (the new, heavily-armored heavy cruisers), 12" Mark 18 (ALASKA Class only, when finally commissioned), 14" Mark 16, 16" Mark 5 (COLORADO Class), and 16" Mark 8 (NORTH CAROLINA Class and all later new US battleships) - the stress on the base region of the shell was now much higher than in all prior US Navy shells, Common or AP, as the shell was "refracted" by the impact forces created by the plate into a new direction closer to right-angles to the plate back, slamming the lower body sideways, sometimes more than once, against the armor plate as the shell gouged out a hole at such a high impact angle. The Mark 21 BDF reverted to the more-conventional (compare to the failed Mark 11) firing pin design where the firing pin was used to detonated the small fulminate of mercury (later declared no longer allowed due to chemical degradation problems in high-heat tropical regions) or lead azide primer in less than 0.003-second after the nose hit the minimum circa-1.2" steel plate (or the thicker, but lower- and longer-resistance, giving a slightly longer delay, on the ocean or an earth/rock/masonry material if a miss or for shore bombardment purposes). Thus, the fuze would be in its 0.033-second delay time (average of many tests, probably from a 0.035-second fuze spec) during all of the rest of an armor impact, having the fuze subject to all sorts of slamming and twisting and deceleration forces in the interim. All prior base fuzes (except the spring-cocked Mark 11 design, which could also ride out this part of the impact if not damaged) of the Mark 21 immediate-firing-pin-function type turned out to have problems at these impact angles due to the variable forces stopping the firing pin or other parts of the safety lockouts jamming the moving parts together and having them no longer able to function properly, causing a "blind" fuze and no or less-than-proper fuze function (unacceptable error in the delay or weak explosion later); note that this kind of thing actually happened against the heavily-armored JEAN BART.
To come up with a fix against such armor-induced worst-case fuze malfunction, it was decided to cause ALL moving parts after thee firing pin had hit the primer and set it off to IMMEDIATELY lock themselves into their final configuration so tightly that the armor-caused slamming during the initial delay time period could not cause any such poor operation. A unique concept was then installed in these fuzes, which were otherwise very similar to the new-model US Navy BDFs used in all other US Navy non-AP projectiles (these were all part of a new family of improved-reliability designs of very similar internal workings). What was done was to take the entire internal firing path in the fuze after the primer goes off - the small black-powder delay pellet and tube to the more powerful (fulminate of mercury or lead azide) detonator and the final TNT-filled lead-in tubes to the nozzle-shaped tetryl boosters' rear internal openings - and form it into a single moving part that can slide up a short distance by the blast of the primer and lock itself into the upper end of the fuze so that when the delay finished the explosion of the shell would have a single motionless path to the boosters and the filler. Only if the fuze were physically deformed or broken could the proper action be prevented. In many tests this auto-locking add-on for the Mark 21 BDF only, to the new, more usual non-AP base fuze designs, worked perfectly and the fuze was mass-produced.
It turned out that the Mark 21 BDF design was TOO GOOD (!!). The entire section mentioned above would move upward as a unit and lock itself in place in a perfect alignment with the boosters, but this level of function could only happen when the fuze tolerances were kept tight so that the locking mechanism got its grip on the upper end of the fuze in the exact spot required (very small error allowed) and could no longer be dislodged, as designed. However, these tight tolerances had NEVER been required in a fuze before (a little wobble in any moving parts had previously not had any effect on this kind of fuze working or not, when the parts were separate from each other). It was found that after a few months in the projectile, the fumes from the somewhat chemically active ammonium picrate (Explosive "D"s chemical name) - the shell cavity had to be covered in a thick layer of lacquer to prevent corrosion and possible explosions/burning action when touching any metal - would slightly corrode all of the surfaces of the interior of the Mark 21 BDF and when the primer went off, the movable block would sometimes not get into its final position, causing all sorts of bad effects, depending on exactly how off-kilter it was. After a few tests, it was determined that during manufacture, merely dipping the finished fuze in a vat of liquid "BAKELITE" plastic, so when it dried and hardened, it would seal the fuze completely, ending the problem. This was in use by mid-1943 and the fuze problems were solved.
A late friend of mine was a TAG in a Walrus, during TORCH. He showed me an interesting photo. It was of his Walrus, pulled up on a beach. It did not have roundels, rather, handpainted 42 style US stars. He said the hope was the French would not shoot at a US Marked aircraft. "Didn't work", he said.
When you look at history, the British strategic plan for every war was the same. Use a powerful navy to blockade the naughty country. Send expeditions to their colonies and deny them and their resources to said nation. Then if they still don't acquiesce build an army in a very begrudging way and defeat them on land.
The saddest repercussion of this strategy was in the Great War. Industry meant that the meat grinder was so bad a tiny professional Army couldn't quite cut it until it was built up.
The technology of tanks, artillery and air coordination is what changed the face of warfare after that. Mostly inspired by the British and Commonwealth losses of 1916.
Since this is a video about Torch I think it was a needed lesson in amphibious landings. Much as even D-Day taught even more lessons in 1944.
Great video as always Mr Drach 👍
Absolutely. Vince touched upon aspects of the initial strategic planning and it amounted to as he said the "Invade Continental Europe" (US) and "Damage their periphery and reduce them before invading" (UK) the eventually compromise was a mix between the two after Stalin was involved and demanded the 2nd Front. He and Soviet planners never considered the Air War nor the MTO as a true second front.
The memories of WW1 died hard and the British and their leaders were of the eief that deploying a full army to the Continent was going to turn into another meat grinding slog.
Honestly, in that arena I believe that among many reasons for a quick capitulation of France in 1940 was the fact they'd never fully recovered from WW1, half of which was fought on their homesoil. It's a tad more understandable when ypu loom at it from the angles and see the reasoning of the leaders.
@@goldenhide I think with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight the gradual gaining of combat experience for the US Army was a good way to go up to a point. The direct, can do approach suits the culture of the USA as a whole.
When you look at the approach of the British in the Med, it makes little sense to fight all the way up Italy when the main strategic objective has to be having it open for transport to and from the Far East. I think the oft quoted number is saving the equivalent of building an extra one million tons of shipping a year.
This was a good chat with Vince. I enjoy the chance to hear from someone who has studied an operation in great detail. You can always learn something new.
You forgot one aspect of traditional British policy in Europe - subsidise an ally to be the sucker that actually does the land fighting. As stated here, the one time they'd tried to do the heavy fighting themselves (1915-17) it wasn't a happy experience. As they no longer had money they had no choice to but to pursue an indirect approach.
@@kenoliver8913 To be honest the British never really had the resources in manpower to field a large army that could do well on the mainland.
@@goldenhide You're right about the French. If the British were wary of a meat grinding slog in France, the French were terrified of it - with reason. I read a history of the 1916 Nivelle ofensive which said "it destroyed the offensive spirit of the French army - FOREVER.
35:50
USS Ranger, after being ignored by the US Navy: *You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me.*
@Yuri Setsuna Ranger-sensei indeed best girl (yes yes, weebs revealing themselves yada yada)
Something something Long Island something something.
(Granted I’m at a pretty low level, and only just got Essex)
She was particularly useful in an air raid on German occupied Scandinavia which is called Operation Leader
Mostly it was a case of not wanting to put an elderly Doberman in a pit with battling Pitbulls.
The fact of her name surviving even as a Forrestal-class carrier is more than a little heartwarming, personally, because that Ranger happened to end up as the film double for a certain "nucleear wessel" in Star Trek IV.
One of my elder brothers was serving on her during that period, so the movie's always made Ranger a household name for me.
Ranger-sensei is undeniable 💙
No one mentions Operation Appearance (1941) involving the invasion of Italian occupied British Somaliland (3,000 men) which had taken place and for which the British brought their own port facilities from Aden
That at least had a very specific strategic reason - Axis presence in Somaliland would have given them a base (bases) to close off the Suez Canal.
Yeah, I've never heard of it. It's like people don't want to discuss the whole war and the beginnings of the war. They only want to talk about D-Day & Battle of the Bulge. The US basically had to train an entire army & navy while building all the war gear in the factories as well as building war ships, merchant ships, planes & tanks & train people to use them. That was the main part of the war efforts in 1942 was getting everything organized so we would have the logistics to take the fight to the enemy. Then by 1944 we were fighting 2 wars on opposite sides of the world. But they never talk about the humble beginnings of the wars before the factories got to churning out massive amounts of war materials. When men were just trying to make due with what they had. And things weren't looking so good. I heard that upon hearing the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor that Churchill did a little dance and said "Now we can't lose." After suffering through the Battle of Britain in 1940 & being worried about operation sea lion I guess we should forgive him for that one. But the thought of 2500 people dying & someone dancing a jig cuz of it makes my blood boil. Considering that estimates say that 65-80 million died during all of WW2, maybe that 2500 doesn't seem so tragic. However it did light the fuse to the powder keg that was the United States of America.
This is such a crazy world we live in. For hundreds of years Britain ruled the seas. Now Americans rules..
I like hearing all the praise for the Massachusetts, it's my local museum battleship, I feel like torch was her best moment in history. She was a brand new flagship fast battleship who spent almost every shell she had taking out destroyers and shore batteries, and dueling another battleship (with a ridiculously unfair advantage) and dodging torpedo's and shells, took some hits, dished out her own, and didn't lose any crew. I'm lucky in that there are multiple great museum ships near me, but she's the biggest and baddest in New England.
Great Museum there in Fall River. Love the ships and museums. Well worth the trip for anyone on this page
It was quite a combat debut. It was fortunate for Massachusetts that Jean Bart did not succeed in hitting Augusta after the latter repaired the turret jammed on the first day. Admiral Hewitt’s flagship being struck after that Jean Bart was “defeated” would have put a damper on Massachusetts' triumphant first outing.
"Nobody wanted to invade Norway." -- Hey, our food is bland, But it is not THAT bad!
For a country with so much access to sea salt, you would think you could afford to put some more on the potatoes! Yeesh! :)
@@genericpersonx333 No, it has to be just some few grains. More would be wasteful. Someone will have to pay for the salt!
I've smelled Lutefisk but was too afraid to taste it. I would not describe it as bland!
@@jarink1 You know something i don't. I've never dared to smell or taste. I 've just swallowed, so I could say I had done it!...
Didn't Churchill want to invade Norway?
My Grandfather who was in the RAMC was on one of the troopships during the operation and described the night turning into day as the battleships all fired simultaneous broadsides.
As a Massachusetts resident. I always love hearing about big Mamie doing her thing. Be well drach keep it up
The awkward moment in '42 when the US and the UK were at war with France. Also the only time regular morrocan troops( under french control) engaged US troops. No wonder after '45 everyone decided to forget about it.
Morocco had been the first country to recognize the newly-independent US.
@@michaelsommers2356 Morocco didn't even exist then, did it?
@@TzunSu Complicated. Morroco was under a french protectorate. Technically it had a functioning local dynasty to rule it but in practice it was fully subordinate to the french in foreign policy through a local representative. Internally they had some leeway but externally whatever France did they had to follow. I always viewed protectorates as the lazy form of colonialism. You don't want a full colonial administration so you keep local rulers as figureheads while making sure you can exploit on the cheap.
@TzunSu morocco has existed as a more or less continuous state for 1200 years. The king who recognized the US back in 1776-7 was from the same dynasty as the current king (Alaouite) . Also, small correction, morocco, was only under a french protectorate starting in 1912 until 1956, so it was definitely fully independent back during the American War of independence
The official written French version of 39-45 makes for some very, erm interesting reading. Not one of our better periods and as such it was snd is better to leave sleeping wolves sleep.
I have a scan of a small log book from my Great-grandfather with a few snippets around Operation Torch. He was posted to HMS Roberts and has a bit of first hand history (and a few photos) of the operation, including "rescuing" some beer from a sunken ship
Should post that online
@@whoknows8264 definitely
My wife's grandfather was the Sébu river pilot who ferried the cruiser Dallas up river to capture the airfield at Port Lyautey...quite a story of his secret travails to get back home to Lyautey...!
Another fascinating video. I love these collaborations particularly where they illuminate underappreciated, or poorly covered, parts of WW2.
When Mr. O'hara was talking about his book "Torch" I kinda freaked out because my dad bought a book on Operation Torch a few months ago and i started to search for it to check to make sure it was the same one and it was!!!
My grandfather was a pilot of the US 52nd Fighter Group - a US unit equipped with MkV Spitfires for Torch. He flew from Gibraltar to Tafraoui in Algeria on November 10th, 1942. Thank you both for this video!
Britain invading France in Africa with Australian and American troops to fight Italian Troops in a bid to counter Germany attacking Russia with Spanish volunteers.
Lets not talk about the Pacific......
Thank you very much for another excellent presentation! I learned so much mor than I ever knew about Torch and it's importance in the overall history of WWII. As a life long Massachusetts resident and having visited our Battleship many times, your program gave me more insights on the history of the ship! Bravo!!! 👍👍👍
A big thing about the Mediterranean which isn't talked about a lot is how much air transport was lost by the Axis. Throughout 1943 the Mediterranean theater was the highest theater of attrition for the luftwaffe. There are no transports available for Stalingrad because they'd all been shot down trying to support the Afrika Corps.
The USS Massachusetts can still be visited in Fall River MA. I was able to visit it as a kid and still remember it.
The references to the attempted invasion of Dakar made me stop and look up that tangent. I had never heard of that operation. That was the first really new thing that I had learned about WWIi in the last 45 years.
I really like these Vince O’Hara videos its nice to see some one with a passion for his subject and he has a character and personality too which is good and helps people take interest!!!
More of these please 🙂
In Dec. 1940 Ranger was one of the first carriers to get the F4F-3 Wildcats and they did a hell of a lot of damage to the enemy during Torch.
Ironic that one of the types they fought were U.S. built P-36 Hawks.
This is a great episode. You did a great job interviewing and Mr. O'Hara really warms to the topic and is a great speaker.
There's simply not enough good things to be said about how these more loosely structured chats enhance knowledge of even the most well known topics, much less poorly understood chapters of history like Torch. Much respect as well to Mr O'Hara for being able to discuss sensitive political angles with an air of tact and dispassionate scholarship that is both essential to a more complete understand of history and very, very rare.
Morocco, ironically, had previous experience being targets of an military amphibious landing.
Spain launched the Al Hoceima operation in September 1925, against the Rif rebels of Abd-el-Krim.
They even used some of the K-ships used by the British at Gallipoli.
Operation Watchtower included opposed landings on nearby Gavutu-Tanambogo and Tulagi, which resulted in substantial casualties to some USMC formations. However, these landings were smaller in scale and conducted by a few battalions. The main landing on Guadalcanal was a divisional affair, but (as noted) not opposed on the beaches. Torch was basically the first successful large scale opposed amphibious landing, perhaps ever but certainly since the disaster at Gallipoli in 1915. It helped show the Allies that they could, in fact, make an opposed landing and get this amphibious thing to work on the large (multi-divisional) level they would need later in the war for the intended landing in France.
Torch had little Naval and Air opposition to the landings on D-Day, days or even months after the landings, that's why it was so successful.
Watchtower had stark opposition from Japanese naval and air forces, even during the landing on Canal 7th August there was a force of Zeroes and Betty bombers attacking USN task force off Guadalcanal and Tulagi and subsequently the Battle of Savo Island which the Allies lost 4 Cruisers, this situation almost disloged the Americans from the islands and they were left alone without any constant naval support.
Torch however met little opposition except for Casablanca engagement and few smale scale Axis air attack on the task force.
@@ramal5708 As I recall, Gallipoli (which is the relevant touchstone for the British) also had no air or naval opposition. What it did have was just enough opposition on land to stall the advance and keep the ANZACs trapped on the beaches for what turned out to be many months.
@@kemarisite my point is comparing Watchtower to Gallipoli or Torch isn't quite good because they're not that similiar.
Watchtower or Guadalcanal Campaign was more famous for, obviously, the cut off Americans on land(US Marines and Marine Raiders) but they could hold off the Japanese ground offensive without substantial support, but also Guadalcanal is more famous for its Naval and Air engagements that both sides tried to gain superiority so that they could land and supply their land forces and eventually dislodge the other side from the island.
Gallipoli and Torch only had stark opposition on the ground, probably some from the air or naval but their main problem was on land and the problem of being thrown out back into the sea again, which in Gallipoli did happened .
@@kemarisite I might add Watchtower was also opposed pretty hard from all combined force of Japanese, though they weren't working in tandem for defense against the American landings, lile you said Tulagi, Gavutu and Tanamboga had substantial Japanese ground opposition whilst on Guadalcanal though the Japanese land force there hid when the First MarDiv landed, at the same time the IJN and IJAAF were mobilized from Rabaul to counter the Americans from air and sea. Several transport ships were attacked or damaged by this air raid and four cruisers were sunk by the Japanese, that's tough opposition.
But what I agree with is that Torch was the first Allied amphibious operations that was successful despite tough land opposition. Not from air or sea opposition.
the thing was the japanese had the tendency at least in the early years to leave the landings uncontested and rely on defense-in-depth instead. This changed as the war progressed but that's why early war naval landings were 'easier' against the japanese
Fascinating! Enjoyed this guest here just as in the video on the Mediterranean! Would love to have heard more on the Vichy coastal batteries and their engagements with Allied warships.
Hope to see more videos in the future with Mr. O'hara.
I definitely would like to see content examining Massachusetts in greater depth, and comparisons of the South Dakota class with other Allied battleships as well as potential Axis adversaries.
Thanks, that was 1hr 9 minutes well spent. So much of the earlier history on this topic was so sanitized, that a realistic interpretation is almost unrecognizable by comparison. I look forward to the read after completing some research on a topic in the Pacific. Appreciate the acknowledgement to the USS Ranger.
I love hearing stuff I didn't know, so this was a really, really great episode! Operation Torch is so overlooked, it's almost criminal. Thanks, Drach and Vince!
"Bonjour there!"
"Général Kénobi!"
Very interesting video, Drach. Always good to be reminded that even when studying naval history, there are often things happening far from the ocean that will have significant impacts on what can occur on the water.
Hello again Mr. O'Hara. "Nobody knew what they were doing." My Father's comment as well, followed not long after by a comment on Sicily, to the effect that they barely knew what they were doing, but thankfully the Germans didn't get organized very quickly either. Then there was something about avoiding naval gunfire if you are in a tank.
That s a common sentence in a lot of fields 😂
@@khaelamensha3624 What? Avoid naval gunfire? ;)
Always a pleasure to see quality content on these lesser appreciated aspects of history.
Thank you for posting this on Operation Torch. So many accounts of the Naval Battle of Casablanca are woefully reductionist. Massachusetts’ DANFS article comes to mind. It is nothing short of remarkable that the Western Allies achieved success in unprecedentedly massive multinational operations during WWII.
A video on Augusta’s service would be appreciated. As with Operation Torch, she gets overlooked a good deal for how well her crew served before and during the war.
The great value of 0peration Torch was that it was to be a short battle that would show us what we needed to learn with what was a relatively soft target.
Always struck me as odd that the U.S. and the U.K. were so concerned about the Germans invading Spain and taking Gibraltar, which threat drove much of the planning for Torch, when in fact the Germans were by then starting to have problems in Russia and utterly lacked the available forces to even realistically contemplate that.
If you view it from the POV of autumn 42 it seemed plausible. Germany had invaded so many countries it didn't seem far fetched they could spare a couple hundred thousand men for a spanish operation. That in reality by autumn 42 Germany was already sending 17 year olds straight out of training to the front few could comprehend. Although this was a known reality even mentioned in western newspapers. But no one put two and two together. 'If they're already down to 17 year old recruits and next year 16 then invading Spain is probably out' never seemed to have been said.
I got the impression that it was the Americans who were worried that Fascist Spain might give Nazi units free passage to attack Gibraltar. The British wanted to go directly to Tunis.The British might consider an Axis land attack on Gibraltar impossible, but keep in mind that by autumn 1942, the Germans had already pulled off many improbable victories all across Europe and North Africa. They had driven deep into the USSR, and the Stalingrad catastrophe hadn’t yet happened.
The Americans may have noticed that the British had disastrously underestimated the Germans several times so far in the war.* The Americans certainly feared the domestic political fallout if their invasion army was cut off and captured. American voters might abandon Europe, and redirect all effort against the Japanese (who had truly enraged them).
In fairness, the British understood that caution could be riskier than boldness, which turned out to be true here. I believe that in 1942, the Americans were too inexperienced to properly evaluate the risks and make reasonable decisions (I say this as an American). But the Americans also were suspicious that the British would take advantage of them (I withhold comment).
* This exercise is left to the reader.
Not to mention that the "Gibraltar of the East" Singapore had fallen rather quickly. A level of paranoia on how long Gibraltar could hold out was probably sensible.
@@chrisp.2544 While understandable (and certainly the public of the time would think that way), is it really a fair comparison? From what I've heard, Singaporean defenses were in a considerably worse shape than they were on paper and Malaysia in general was undermanned.
@@Quzix42 The issue in Malaya/Singapore wasn't a lack of manpower - the Japanese were outnumbered by almost 3:1. It was a failure of leadership and a "peacetime" attitude at almost every level.
For example an Australian unit detailed to defend part of the Singapore perimeter went to the supply depot to acquire some barbed wire. They came away empty handed because it was closed for the weekend!
Ships carrying vital supplies took forever to unload because there was a reluctance to hire more dock workers as it might reduce the workforce available for the rubber plantations.
My father was stationed at Oran. He was US Navy but based on land. His job was to shuttle communications/orders ship to ship. Since there was UBoat activity, he was sent via PTboat to ships around Oran. Wish I could share the photo of his PTboat (he showed me it once, when it was being loaded for return to the states). Even have a story, along with a "war chest" souvenir. Just ordered a copy of Torch, thank you for another informative perspective Rum Ration!
Thanks Vince O'Hara for sharing your research with us a bit. Thanks Drach!
So let’s see.
The French army were capable well trained and a serious obstacle to the Allies.
Yet in 1940 they failed.
The French army were patriotic and loyal to the present French government.
So they were ordered to defend against the Allies and they did. Yet so many did not wish to do this but obeyed.
Imagine if America or England had become “Vichy “ governments. If their army’s were informed that an outside army was coming to liberate their countries and their present governments ordered them to resist….. would they had obeyed or assisted the liberating armies.
I like to think they would have disobeyed and fought alongside their liberators.
Also the disagreements the Brits and Yanks had were a good thing.
If one country had dictated what and where things were going to happen it could off gone more riskier.
Pros and cons would have been bandied back and forth and then a sensible compromise would have been reached.
Look at Germany and the Axis forces.
They dictated to all their allies what was going to happen. Which quite often backfired on their Allies.
Another factor influencing French resistance during Torch was, wait for it . . . Toulon,
@@edwardweeden8837 lol
Good timing for this video since I am in the middle of reading Mr O'Hara's book on Operation Torch.
I just want to say - as a nerd who found your channel because you collaborate with a star trek Lore channel I like and is increasingly aware of how little he knows about military history - I do greatly appreciate you having these authors on to talk about books and history. I am very new to military history nerdery and when it comes to World War 2 I am somewhat wary about looking at books about it so it's good to know an author is a good egg and knows their history.
As with any campaign, or operation their are so many factors that we all need to consider when viewing their success or failures. As a land lubber and grunt I first and foremost have been reading about WW II history since I was 13-14 yrs old due to the models my parents would give me for my Birthdays or Christmas. Having found your channel last year (the only thanks Mark Felton will get from me) you have introduced me to a vast treasure of naval history dating back as far as you could and I am sure your research continues in so thank you Admiral Drachinifel (does have a nice ring to it lol) for your work and of course you have led me to many other highly credible historians and YT channels. Mr. O'Hara's work very thorough and like Ian Toll's work in the pacific shows how technology, doctrine, learning experiences, politics, logistics etc. play a huge role in how and why things happened. A-1 Job sir
Excellent presentation gentlemen!! The USS Massachusetts is in my own backyard in Battleship Cove Fall River, Ma along with several other WW2 ships.
For us ppl who are using phones to listen to your videos (work & travel etc) I would greatly appreciate if you could boost the volume some. Nothing dramatic but just some more. Thank you.
I still find it amazing how many people, to this day, understimate the importance of this operation, as well as the assault on Sicily. Many forget the US army had no experience on modern warfare, other than the debacle on the Philippines, and that was a completely diferent area. Some of their equipment was obsolete or even outright not existed. Likewise for the USAF on ground support and airborne operations. Likewise for (also the UK) large scale amphibious operations, _specially_ combined operations of two vastly diferent forces, who used diferent weapons, equipment, procedures. The near disaster of the airborne incasion of Sicily also taught valuable lessons.
Imagine Kasserine Pass in France, in 1942. Imagine the USAF trying to fight it out against the Lufwaffe in 1942, with limited numbers on P-40, against veterans on Me-109 and Fw190, forcing the RAF to assist them. Imagine trying to coordinate a multi-division assault... without all the equipment, procedures and _ships_ created from the hard lessons learned in the Med in 1942 and 1943, not to mention the sheer numbers required, against a german army at the top of it's strengh. It would be a disaster.
Yeah imagine a 1942/43 US Army in France under the "inspired" leadership of Fredenall. He should have been awarded the Iron Cross for his services to Germany.
I volunteer on the USS Massachusetts which had a shootout with the Jean Bart and other French ships at Casablanca during Op Torch
Best naval history channel out there love it keep it up 👍
I've read that if the Allies had tried to land in France in 42 or 43 it would have been a complete disaster and the invasion would have been thrown back into the sea with massive losses in killed and captured. The Allies needed to learn how to invade large scale, that's what Dieppe tested.
Dieppe proved that no landing could be made on a port. Therefor Overlord planned to land between ports (and bring harbors with them).
And it was not only Dieppe they needed to learn from. In early 1944 the US transferred a lot of experienced beachmasters and similar specialists from the Pacific to Britain ...
Good to see Mr. O'Hara again! Great work as always!
Regarding the flak and floggings the French get to this date - it is a melding of French actions in the war viewed with the lens of French obstinacy in the face of the Cold War Soviet colonialist empire.
The French under De Gaulle tried going a third way, and would frequently oppose NATO, the British and US. That attitude was bundled up with their actions in the war as one of weak willed passivity in the face of an aggressor.
Darlan never tired telling the British in 1939/1940 that Nelson had killed his grandfather at Trafalgar
A friend of mine does not want to hear about British as his grandfather was killed in Mers El Kebir... Sad times,... 😞
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy.
Thank you very much Mr. Drach and your guest Mr. Ohara. Very good discussion and loads of information on an important element of WWII.
Ah great timing, just when I have lunch break and Drach just posted a video
Where you guys located?
Well in France and stuck in a meeting... Gotta wait til evening! 😭
Awesome episode, just sad that it ended so quickly.
These two are great together.
Drach only have great guests
Very interesting video, thank you very much. My grand-father was Maître D on board LIPARI (Chargeurs Réunis) who was docked in Casablanca opposite Jean Bart. His ship was badly holed with 16 inch shells and burnt for days. His ship had arrived from Dakar with civilian evacuees early morning on november 8, 1942. When the bombing began, disembarkation had started, hundreds were screaming and fled the dock area. My grand-father survived. Would you have photos of the port during the operation ?
Oh it's this guy again great I could listen to you two talk about ships all day
This was an excellent episode
I have been through 43 minutes of this and heard nothing of the role Ranger’s air group played in silencing the Jean Bart’s big guns!?! Sad. I am in possession of a host of photos taken on CV-4 during this and other operations (both ETO and PTO). I also have a copy of The handwritten War Diary of Ranger. She was a BUSY ship…throughout hostilities she did a lot of ferrying, training and east coast air cover. For example she provided air cover for FDR’s flight up to Canada to meet with Churchill.
Greetings from sunny Tucson Arizona. A great presentation this morning. Keep it up. I really learned quite a lot.
I'm wondering if you would consider a presentation on the HMS Agincourt. I think that this is a fascinating story of how it goes from Brazil, to Turkey, to England.
Thanks again
Fascinating discussion. I didn't appreciate the political aspects, such as France possibly joining the Axis. By the way, the US Army, in the pre-WW2 era, had a long and strong admiration for the French Army. I'm sure that affected attitudes and planning.
The connections to the French led to American artillery using metric measures all through WW2: 60 mm mortars, 75 mm, 105 mm, 155 mm as standard artillery bore sizes plus the 90 mm antiaircraft, later to become the M-36 and M-26 tank cannon.
@@amerigo88 most 75 mm used as anti tank weapons by the US during the early parts of WW2 were basically modifications of the french WW1 75 mm 1897 field gun. In fact if i remember correctly, the ammunition was compatible between models, and the free french troops in Bir Hakeim used 75mm shells from M3 Lee tanks in their 1897 field guns used to stop the german and italian tanks.
@Thibaud Duhamel Pretty sure you are spot on regarding the American version of the 1897 "French 75." It was the gun in the halftrack tank destroyers used in N. Africa in places like Kasserine Pass.
I believe the US Army and Marines also had some pack mounted, mountain howitzers in 75 mm. Mules and jeeps could haul them up mountains and into jungles to provide some infantry support in difficult conditions like Italy and the Solomon Islands.
@thibaudduhamel2581 Vive la Legion!
@@amerigo88FFS 75 mm was a standard medium artillery round pretty much world wide. I believe the Marines, etc, ? We put them in M3 and Sherman tanks. They were like the 50 Browning MG of artillery.
So nice to see Mr. O'Hara back on the channel. Great video on one of my favourite topics, Drach.
The audio is very quiet, I had to listen almost at maximum volume.
Regarding Mr. O'Hara's comment around 51:00, it's hard to see the capture of Tunis shortening the war by a year. I could see them getting to D-day a month faster, perhaps, but no more than that. The Germans wouldn't have been appreciably weaker for the loss of Tunis (if anything, they'd probably have lost less when it finally fell), and the Allies wouldn't have been appreciably stronger in the arms that mattered(e.g., landing ships). Landing in Italy was great and all, but doing that six months sooner wasn't going to speed up the war directly, and even indirectly it wouldn't have been such a huge impact.
Now, even moving VE-day up by a week would still be a big win. More of our soldiers would have come home, the Iron Curtain would likely have been further east, and so forth. But it's not nearly as big as he says. If you want French military action to shorten the war by a year, have them keep enough of a reserve to turn back the thrust through the Ardennes.
Absolutely, totally, unreservedly AGREE!
I’ve been an avid student of history for 60 years. Looking at WWII from where I sit in 2024, I find it amazing that America could get young men to go across the ocean to fight… the French. Think about it- a generation earlier we went over to Europe to help rescue France, and then two years after Torch we helped liberate France. But in between we fought against them.
The French are some really weird people.
I think I know why the Allies couldn't take all of Tunisia in 1942.
They weren't opporTunistic enough!
Nice one!
USSR invades Poland In conjunction with Germany in 1939. Takes half of Polands territory. Plus annex three small Baltic nations at same time.
Yes they were definitely on the right side. No conflicted narrative there.
Now the French on the other hand.
Vince O'Hara is so good at telling stories. Please invite him again. 😀
This is the 3-4 time I’ve asked for HMS Aurora. It’s nice to see that there are others who are interested in it’s very active career!
I’ve always found it strange that the French saw both the US and British as invaders. Although technically that is true, It seems obvious that the Germans were the real enemy. Was it worth the thousands of lives on both sides to keep the appearance up? And keep the Germans from taking control of France? And having to eventually sink their fleet? Hindsight is 2020, but commanding the fleet and the colonies to carry on fighting against Germany would’ve shorten the war by at least one year.
I just got through Max Hastings book on Operation Pedestal so this was a nice followup.
My great uncle Frank Higham gave his life on HMS Ibis during this period. RIP Uncle Frank
One thing not discussed in all "Torch" books is how many German Divisions did Torch tie up.
Starting with the occupation of Vicie France.
Additional troops pushed into Tunis etc.
My guess is 10-12 into Tunis.
And that many more to control southern France.
???
Larry Farr
To say that Vichy France was neutral is one of the greatest lies of the 21st century. That French leaders attempted to collaborate in no way mitigated the fact that Vichy France not only financially, but materially supported the Axis. France was NOT "neutral" in any way.
What would you have them do? Try being in the their shoes. Play ball or wind up like Poland?
Vichy France was not "neutral" indeed. It was on the receiving end of British attacks. Mers-El-Kebir, Syria, Madagascar. The french leaders attempted to collaborate with some rationale, surely bad ones in the end, but it's not surprising
Well, when people can come to your house and arrest your family... I do not speak about some leaders who I have shot myself if possible... But for people, who can tell how we would have acted?
Being threatened certainly can help explain collaboration but it still means they weren't neutral.
@@tremor3258 We do agree just I do not see the point being aggressive about it. Have a good day!
One of the other fascinating factors of Operation Torch is the backdrop of the Attack on Mers el Kebir, something the French were still livid about and the Royal Navy were still unhappy about having to do, and from what I read in the past, one of the reasons for being a very visually American operation.
It's also, as was mentioned a very interesting period in WWII history, because everything kind of lead from there; Torch meant that, eventually North Africa became a two-front campaign and meant the Axis could be defeated, then the invasion of Italy, which divides German resources, that enable the invasion of Normandy to occur against weakened German forces through relocation and attrition and has also been a reminder for me that the various campaigns and battles aren't isolated levels in a RTS game, it's one, big interlinked war that is made up of a number of smaller wars that affect each other, especially informing amphibious operations for the Allies all the way up to D-Day.
we love Norway, we need the parking space... thanks guys!
Excellent talk, especially the intro about the political situation and the French point of view
Thanks SO much for the gloss on Torch. Definitely encouraged me to look into this slice of history.
Terrific presentation. Mr O'Hara was tremendous. Loved his "what ifs". Interesting points. Will get the book. And Maps ...yes !!! Love them. Suspect most people here do as well
In ALL of the maps used here, not a single one shows the position of Ranger!
One of the most fortuitous circumstances for Operation Torch was the weather, or more accurately, the relatively calm seas that occurred on that day. The Moroccan beaches quite often had huge breaking waves, but on the day of Torch the waves were relatively small.
I hope you do a full breakdown of this campaign at some point as this was a colourful overview but sadly didn't have much structure😅
Thank you, I have never read much on the Torch operation and now iuts something to get into.
Excellent video, watch all of it. Thank you!
Thank you. This appears to be another book you have recommended which I will buy.
Just bought another book because of this. Thanks Drach!
Excellent! Geeking on the history. Thanks!
This was a great video. On this sort of collaboration video a slightly more structured overview of the topic in question would be helpful, even if just at the start, as I had almost no knowledge of Torch, and feel this was the weaker point of the video. Keep up the good work!
Long had Struggle for the Inner Sea and I highly recommended it.
Big Mamie...BB-59. She is a museum ship in Battleship Cove Fall River, Mass now. In the 1980's when I was a wee lad, I overnighted onboard twice with my troop as a Boy Scout. Saw where she got hit by the Jean Bart. Hell of a piece of engineering. 39 months from laying the keel to combat...boy did the Empire of Japan and the 1,000 year Reich make a hell of a mistake.
I had always imagined Drachinifel as ... having a big ol' cowboy mustache and a natty white hat, appropriate for a early 20th century submarine. Now I'm all confuzzled.
I've said it before & I'll say it again. In my opinion the character "Gandalf" & how he was able to get Men, Dwarves & Elves & even Hobbits & Ents to band together & work together towards defeating "the Dark Lord". Considering "the Hobbit" written before WW2 then "Lord of the Rings" written after WW2 I think Tolkien was inspired to write the books by the struggle to defeat the "Axis Powers" in WW2. And let's face it, the Axis Powers were doing some very Evil things too. But Eisenhower worked really hard to make sure everyone was able to contribute that wanted to & could contribute. And wouldn't let ANY American Officers speak negative about British Officers because they are British. And so on.
I notice for references he never mentioned Samuel Eliot Morrison's "History of US Naval Operations in World War II; Volume 2: Operations in North African Waters". Excellent examination of the US Navy's activities during Torch.
Yes, read Morrison first, and only THEN read O’Hara.
I just ordered a copy of "Torch". It'll arrive tomorrow or Friday. Will be offline a few days.
You should bring Mr. O'Hara for a video for every book he published. Always a pleasure to hear someone with this much passion and knowledge.
so I've always found it interesting how operation torch made Walter Cronkite career as the admiral left him leave the battleship Texas on the swordfish allowing him to beat the reporter on the Massachusetts back to be the first report to give an uncensored story of the battle it really help make his career as a reporter and new anchor
I enjoyed this, and I think Mr O'Hara is an excellent guest. But I was expecting more of a structured guide - akin to Drach's Guadalcanal series. I came in with zero knowledge about Torch, and now only have some interesting puzzle pieces.
Southern California for life! I'm born and raised north San Diego county about an hour north of the Mexican border.