stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 12, 2024 19:50:42 GMT
That is the interesting question as to with no Operation Torch or later events in the Med there will be a hell of a lot of butterflies.
In the scenario I mentioned earlier the worst case scenario would be that the western powers invaded France prior to Zitadelle prompting Hitler to call off the attack and sending some of the forces west which in turn prompts Stalin to switch from defence to attack. Then while the Red army are still struggling through German defences the western landings collapse into a costly failure allowing the Germans to send further forces east. In that case and with Stalin possibly feeling betrayed by the western powers there is the danger of a separate peace being agreed, or at least western-Soviet relations being a lot cooler than OTL and the entire war in Europe possibly being set back a year or so.
Also what you mentioned will result in no invasion of Italy for a while.
Your quite probably still go the Axis in western Libya at least as while the 8th Army can smash Rommel in 2nd El Alamein as OTL managing to supply an advance all the way to Tripoli is likely to be a challenge. Which of course means at least some British forces will need to stay in N Africa to defend against a new offensive.
However definitely having Italy still as an active Axis power and Vichy France kind of neutral frees up a lot of German resources, let alone the losses they don't suffer OTL in trying to hold Tunisia.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 12, 2024 20:15:18 GMT
Found this on Quora, do not know 100 % if the numbers are corecht what are mentiond here but does gives us a size to what landing happend in 1943 compared to 1944.
Looking at the big amphibious landings the Allies did make in 1943:
- July 1943: Operation Husky (Invasion of Sicily) = 467,000 men landed in 3 days , 2590 ships.
- September 1943: Operation Baytown/Slapstick/Avalanche (Invasion of Italy): = 190,000 men landed in 13 days, 627 ships.
While in 1944 the big landings were:
- Jan 1944: Operation Shingle (Anzio) = 70,000 men landed in first 7 days, 329 ships.
- June 1944: Operation Overlord (Normandy) = 160,000 men landed 1st day, 875,000 by end of June, 5000+ ships.
- August 1944: Operation Dragoon (Southern France) = 151,000 men landed 1st day, rising to 576,000, 2200 ships.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 12, 2024 20:19:17 GMT
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jan 12, 2024 20:40:02 GMT
I looked up Rommel just to check on dates - actually before being sent to OB West he had a few days in Greece! Seems the Germans were really in the dark as to where the Allies would hit them. Though once the Med settles down quiet the Germans begin guessing - still I expect Hitler to insist on strong defences of Norway. The thing about D-Day was that quite a number of SS and Wehrmacht Panzer Divisions were there recovering following the winter battles in Russia post Op Zitadelle during July.
Also the Germans have just lost more troops in Tunesia than they did at Stalingrad and the Soviets is going to keep on the offensive. They also lost a lot of transports - OTL Hitler decided prior to the Invasion of Sicily to have Operation Zitadelle jump off during July. It was the German Panzer Divisions that had been involved in that and subsequent fighting i Russia that was sent to rest in France - though if the Allies land in Normandy/France 6 June 1943 those formations that was going to Zitadelle may go west instead and present the Allied landing with a much better equipped adversary. So what happens when the Soviets realize the pressure is off?
That is the interesting question as to with no Operation Torch or later events in the Med there will be a hell of a lot of butterflies.
In the scenario I mentioned earlier the worst case scenario would be that the western powers invaded France prior to Zitadelle prompting Hitler to call off the attack and sending some of the forces west which in turn prompts Stalin to switch from defence to attack. Then while the Red army are still struggling through German defences the western landings collapse into a costly failure allowing the Germans to send further forces east. In that case and with Stalin possibly feeling betrayed by the western powers there is the danger of a separate peace being agreed, or at least western-Soviet relations being a lot cooler than OTL and the entire war in Europe possibly being set back a year or so.
Hmm, didn't understand the OP as not doing Torch - still without that the Germans will be weakened in the East once the Allies land and Zitadelle is cancelled. I don't really see Stalin have reason for feeling betrayed - the Allies only did what he had cried for all the time. It just failed. Of course he may feel that way BUT with the Panzers spent in the West there is less to hold back the Soviet when they roll forward the next month. Stalin may end up sensing that he is on the werge of tumbling the Nazi House of Cards and the Allies will have to do so some serious thinking.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 12, 2024 20:41:22 GMT
That is the interesting question as to with no Operation Torch or later events in the Med there will be a hell of a lot of butterflies.
In the scenario I mentioned earlier the worst case scenario would be that the western powers invaded France prior to Zitadelle prompting Hitler to call off the attack and sending some of the forces west which in turn prompts Stalin to switch from defence to attack. Then while the Red army are still struggling through German defences the western landings collapse into a costly failure allowing the Germans to send further forces east. In that case and with Stalin possibly feeling betrayed by the western powers there is the danger of a separate peace being agreed, or at least western-Soviet relations being a lot cooler than OTL and the entire war in Europe possibly being set back a year or so.
Hmm, didn't understand the OP as not doing Torch - still without that the Germans will be weakened in the East once the Allies land and Zitadelle is cancelled. I don't really see Stalin have reason for feeling betrayed - the Allies only did what he had cried for all the time. It just failed. Of course he may feel that way BUT with the Panzers spent in the West there is less to hold back the Soviet when they roll forward the next month. Stalin may end up sensing that he is on the werge of tumbling the Nazi House of Cards and the Allies will have to do so some serious thinking.
Movement of troops takes time, its not so easy to redeploy troops from the East Front to the west Front while in the mean time being hammered by Bombers and fighters. |
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jan 12, 2024 20:44:15 GMT
Hmm, didn't understand the OP as not doing Torch - still without that the Germans will be weakened in the East once the Allies land and Zitadelle is cancelled. I don't really see Stalin have reason for feeling betrayed - the Allies only did what he had cried for all the time. It just failed. Of course he may feel that way BUT with the Panzers spent in the West there is less to hold back the Soviet when they roll forward the next month. Stalin may end up sensing that he is on the werge of tumbling the Nazi House of Cards and the Allies will have to do so some serious thinking.
Movement of troops takes time, its not so easy to redeploy troops from the East Front to the west Front while in the mean time being hammered by Bombers and fighters. Sure does but during 1943 there is bombers but much less fighters to escort those bombers to hit those troop trains. No daylight attacks. Try finding a trooptrain by night.. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 13, 2024 2:06:28 GMT
In that case and with Stalin possibly feeling betrayed by the western powers betrayed? If they're thrown off the continent, wouldn't a fairer expression be "let down"? there is the danger of a separate peace being agreed, Sure, some additional danger beyond OTL. Still doubtful however. Hitler's western victory and ability to transfer forces east will probably delude him to think he can win in the east or bargain for more Soviet territory Stalin thinks he is entitled to (zero). |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 13, 2024 2:07:20 GMT
Carl Schwamberger at AH.com has put up some 'earlier D-Day could work' arguments.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 13, 2024 10:21:02 GMT
Carl Schwamberger at AH.com has put up some 'earlier D-Day could work' arguments. A, i think this is the thread your speaking of: D-Day in 1943: Plausibility and operations in FranceThink Calbear is correct and its only on page 1 of 76: In 1943?
It looks like a total Charlie Foxtrot. It is very possibly repulsed or contained with heavy WAllied losses.
The WAllies lacked sufficient lift to move enough personnel and material to the Continent.
The WAllies had, at best, Air Parity over France. The one sided slaughter of German ground forces by maundering WAllied fighters won't be happening, The Wallied will be lucky if they don't lose a couple ships from the Gun Line to enemy air attacks.
The WAllies, especially the Americans, lacked both sufficient total trained personnel and sufficient veteran leadership to make any landing work.Worse, the WAllies lacked any sort of reasonably coherent Amphibious Doctrine. It took 18 months after the near disaster of Torch, the surprisingly goofed-up Husky Landings, and information from the Pacific to come up with the juggernaut that landed in Normandy. Let's take Operation Torch and try it against the Wehrmacht, with the Luftwaffe have equal control of the skies.. The landingsIOTL had a hard time against the French, who were anything but utterly committed to holding the area for Vichy.
The Anglo-American forces didn't secure North Africa until May 13th, 1943. This scenario would require that force to reconstitute within a few months and land in France.
Epic disaster doesn't even begin to cover it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2024 10:19:08 GMT
In that case and with Stalin possibly feeling betrayed by the western powers betrayed? If they're thrown off the continent, wouldn't a fairer expression be "let down"? there is the danger of a separate peace being agreed, Sure, some additional danger beyond OTL. Still doubtful however. Hitler's western victory and ability to transfer forces east will probably delude him to think he can win in the east or bargain for more Soviet territory Stalin thinks he is entitled to (zero).
If your paranoid then it would be seen differently and Stalin pretty much fits that category. 
Some additional danger of a separate peace. Not just from the extra damage the Red Army is likely to take from having to attack prepared German positions, then being faced by Germany being able to switch forces from the reserves and the west. You have the fact that France is probably safe from an allied attack for another year at least and would the western powers try something in the Med before then? [The US might double down on insisting that only attacks on N France are worthwhile which would mean no land activity by the west for a year or so while the Red Army continues to bled and with the Soviets no doubt questioning how serious a western attack will be then.
At the very least western-Soviet relations will take a big knock.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jan 14, 2024 10:39:47 GMT
betrayed? If they're thrown off the continent, wouldn't a fairer expression be "let down"? Sure, some additional danger beyond OTL. Still doubtful however. Hitler's western victory and ability to transfer forces east will probably delude him to think he can win in the east or bargain for more Soviet territory Stalin thinks he is entitled to (zero).
If your paranoid then it would be seen differently and Stalin pretty much fits that category.
Some additional danger of a separate peace. Not just from the extra damage the Red Army is likely to take from having to attack prepared German positions, then being faced by Germany being able to switch forces from the reserves and the west. You have the fact that France is probably safe from an allied attack for another year at least and would the western powers try something in the Med before then? [The US might double down on insisting that only attacks on N France are worthwhile which would mean no land activity by the west for a year or so while the Red Army continues to bled and with the Soviets no doubt questioning how serious a western attack will be then.
At the very least western-Soviet relations will take a big knock.
If the US insist on landing in France and with the possibility that American's will want focus to move to the Pacific First then Stalin will certainly see the West as traitorus. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 14, 2024 10:44:56 GMT
If your paranoid then it would be seen differently and Stalin pretty much fits that category. Some additional danger of a separate peace. Not just from the extra damage the Red Army is likely to take from having to attack prepared German positions, then being faced by Germany being able to switch forces from the reserves and the west. You have the fact that France is probably safe from an allied attack for another year at least and would the western powers try something in the Med before then? [The US might double down on insisting that only attacks on N France are worthwhile which would mean no land activity by the west for a year or so while the Red Army continues to bled and with the Soviets no doubt questioning how serious a western attack will be then. At the very least western-Soviet relations will take a big knock.
If the US insist on landing in France and with the possibility that American's will want focus to move to the Pacific First then Stalin will certainly see the West as traitorus. That means that Roosevelt has to arm wrestle Churchill who i believed argued for a Mediterranean first strategy, in which the Germans and Italians would be cleared from North Africa. Churchill persuaded Roosevelt and Eisenhower that invading Sicily and then the Italian mainland would negate an invasion of France |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2024 10:47:45 GMT
Yes the landing craft may be available, although the article itself mentions that cuts in such production was in part because more effort was put into escort units to win the battle of the Atlantic. Which was an essential requirement for a successful invasion. However would you have had facilities like the Mulberry Harbours available? Its one thing getting the 1st wave ashore but being able to supply them and continue with additional forces to replace losses let along build up more is another factor. Plus other sources do question the ability of the allied air forces to maintain air superiority over N France from bases in southern England. You definitely wouldn't have the overwhelming level of air power as the allies had in 1944, especially without the wearing down of the Luftwaffe, especially by the US strategic bombing campaign drawing them into air to air combat. This not only applies to preventing Luftwaffe attacks on the invasion force but probably even more importantly the very successful interdiction of German attempts to reinforce the defence and launch counter attacks. As late as the Battle of the Bulge the German army showed how dangerous it could be when allied air power was nullified by bad weather.
There are some other things that are dubious as well. I don't think I've heard about a plan for a 200 division US army? 100 yes but that was abandon to build up the strategic bomber force. Also what the Germans had in France in 1943 OTL ignores forces drawn into fight [and lost] in N Africa and tied down in Italy and the Balkans. If more forces are shipped over to the UK for a 43 invasion how much shipping tonnage is taken from vital supplies to Britain - both in terms of the initial shipping of those men and their equipment, then the supplies they need to maintain them and also the need to make up for lost production, especially agricultural inside Britain, which means even more shipping needed for that?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2024 11:00:45 GMT
That is the interesting question as to with no Operation Torch or later events in the Med there will be a hell of a lot of butterflies.
In the scenario I mentioned earlier the worst case scenario would be that the western powers invaded France prior to Zitadelle prompting Hitler to call off the attack and sending some of the forces west which in turn prompts Stalin to switch from defence to attack. Then while the Red army are still struggling through German defences the western landings collapse into a costly failure allowing the Germans to send further forces east. In that case and with Stalin possibly feeling betrayed by the western powers there is the danger of a separate peace being agreed, or at least western-Soviet relations being a lot cooler than OTL and the entire war in Europe possibly being set back a year or so.
Hmm, didn't understand the OP as not doing Torch - still without that the Germans will be weakened in the East once the Allies land and Zitadelle is cancelled. I don't really see Stalin have reason for feeling betrayed - the Allies only did what he had cried for all the time. It just failed. Of course he may feel that way BUT with the Panzers spent in the West there is less to hold back the Soviet when they roll forward the next month. Stalin may end up sensing that he is on the werge of tumbling the Nazi House of Cards and the Allies will have to do so some serious thinking.
Although other statements have been made here what I've read in the past is that going for a 43 invasion of France would have required cancelling Torch. That could be wrong but it could be correct. However without Torch how many valuable lessons would have been lost? Possibly if it had gone ahead with the more aggressive British plan -i.e. landings further east, including in Tunisia and that had prevented sizeable German reinforcements it might have been completed in time to allow for a 43 attack on France but that would have been tight. However that wouldn't have meant the heavy air and ground losses that Germany suffered in the fighting for Tunisia. You definitely wouldn't have had an ability to attack Sicily or the Italian mainland, which would have freed up a lot of German forces compared to OTL.
In terms of Stalin's reaction to a failure, as I mentioned elsewhere Stalin and his minions had been calling for a landing for years, no matter how impractical it was for most of that time. If something is attempted in 43 and quickly turns into a damp squid he's not going to be happy and given his personality could easily see [and will probably claim regardless] that it was never a serious operation by the western powers. Doubly so if that means no Zitadelle* which means the OTL heavy German losses in trying to fight through deep Soviet defences hasn't occurred and if Stalin's own offensives, even with some territorial gains are badly mauled by stronger German forces including those switched from the west or a general reserve play a role in this.
* - this assumes that Zitadelle is even an option. If you don't have the diversion of considerable resources to Tunisia - either because of no Torch or its done more successfully - its possible that the Kursk salient is mopped up before the spring melt as von Manstein initially intended. In which case a lot of other butterflies as there's no clear target for a limited German offensive in the east. Or even that the clear build up for an invasion in the west, which won't be possible to hide, means that Hitler is persuaded to delay any attack in the east and counter attack offensives from either enemy.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2024 11:04:42 GMT
Hmm, didn't understand the OP as not doing Torch - still without that the Germans will be weakened in the East once the Allies land and Zitadelle is cancelled. I don't really see Stalin have reason for feeling betrayed - the Allies only did what he had cried for all the time. It just failed. Of course he may feel that way BUT with the Panzers spent in the West there is less to hold back the Soviet when they roll forward the next month. Stalin may end up sensing that he is on the werge of tumbling the Nazi House of Cards and the Allies will have to do so some serious thinking.
Movement of troops takes time, its not so easy to redeploy troops from the East Front to the west Front while in the mean time being hammered by Bombers and fighters.
As 575 says German transportation capacity is markedly better in 43 than 44 and especially if as OTL the strategic bombing offensive has been cancelled for about 6 months with priority given to bombarding positions in N France as in the OTL 44 invasion. Yes there will still be damage in the western regions, albeit with higher allied air losses but across much of Germany and the east much less impact. Plus if the invasion of France is defeated then a lot of air units could probably be moved pretty damned quickly.
|
|
