|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 14, 2024 14:38:41 GMT
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. I'm not saying it could not have happened, but the US turning the taps and switching forces to a 'Pacific-first' strategy of campaigns in reaction to either a failed invasion of France in 1943, or in protest of a British refusal to support 1943 France landing [and British support would have been vital] would have been logistically inefficient with slow results, not perceptibly speeding the progress of the Pacific War compared to OTL. It would have been epically dumb. Just sending more people and stuff to get the same basic job done, only over more terrain and atolls than in OTL. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 14, 2024 14:50:06 GMT
However without Torch how many valuable lessons would have been lost? That Torch and the Mediterranean campaigns were vital for teaching lessons and 'blooding' the American troops is one of the most common, but hardest to support with hard data, folks make in favor of the 42-43 Mediterranean campaigns and waiting until 44 for D-Day in France. Because most of the American assault units and exploitation units were not veteran formations from Mediterranean operations, but came straight from training camps in the USA. We do not have much data on how specific lessons learned from Torch and Husky were preserved and used to Allied advantage in Overlord and the Cobra breakout in France. Or at least I never see it in counterfactual discussions like this. I've heard anecdotes of similar lessons or rookie mistakes having to be tragically relearned in the Med AND France. A lot depends on the level of analysis - enlisted people, the "troops" usually didn't repeat between the theaters, nor did officers from Lieutenants to Colonels, but we know many Generals, senior ones, like Patton, Eisenhower, did - are we really talking about their learning and that of their supporting staffs? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2024 20:37:02 GMT
However without Torch how many valuable lessons would have been lost? That Torch and the Mediterranean campaigns were vital for teaching lessons and 'blooding' the American troops is one of the most common, but hardest to support with hard data, folks make in favor of the 42-43 Mediterranean campaigns and waiting until 44 for D-Day in France. Because most of the American assault units and exploitation units were not veteran formations from Mediterranean operations, but came straight from training camps in the USA. We do not have much data on how specific lessons learned from Torch and Husky were preserved and used to Allied advantage in Overlord and the Cobra breakout in France. Or at least I never see it in counterfactual discussions like this. I've heard anecdotes of similar lessons or rookie mistakes having to be tragically relearned in the Med AND France. A lot depends on the level of analysis - enlisted people, the "troops" usually didn't repeat between the theaters, nor did officers from Lieutenants to Colonels, but we know many Generals, senior ones, like Patton, Eisenhower, did - are we really talking about their learning and that of their supporting staffs?
I think there are multiple interpretations on learning lessons in such circumstances. There is the question of experience of individual units but also of staff responsible for training organisation and in terms of different types of lessons.
One obvious point would be the situation for individual commanders. For instance Lloyd Fredendall is generally seen to have been a failure in Operation Torch, in part because he stayed too far from the front line. If it hadn't occurred would his ability have been questioned prior to him possibly being used in a major role in an alternative Overlord? Or possibly could there have been other leaders who stayed too far from the front - admittedly that would have been less of an issue in a N France invasion as the initial combat zone would have been vastly smaller? Similarly with commanders who were more successful might they have not gained the same prominence TTL and hence possibly not have played as large a role?
Those issues apply to multiple levels of command, not just top level command. Would information from the Pacific, which was relatively limited by mid-43, on things like organising beach landing supply issues, have covered for a lack of experience in the European theatre in TTL?
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jan 18, 2024 4:26:09 GMT
There is also the Dark Side - Intelligence. The British are renowned for running deception operations during WWII one such to shroud the real objective of D-Day; Pas de Calais. A snippet from BBC tell some of the story of Colossus the computer used to break Enigma and which confirmed that Hitler would believe that Pas de Calais indeed were the real objective thus keeping troops there waiting for the "real" invasion! Even if it don't according to Sun Tzu, ancient Chinese writer on Warfare still revered today, the meddling of politicians in military affairs should be avoided as it may let victory slip from your grasp! |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jan 18, 2024 18:14:18 GMT
After reading the great articles you folks graciously made me aware of I think I'll forget about my own version. Subject has been addressed adequately. I have some other ideas that IMO you will find less familiar.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 18, 2024 18:19:34 GMT
After reading the great articles you folks graciously made me aware of I think I'll forget about my own version. Subject has been addressed adequately. I have some other ideas that IMO you will find less familiar. That is what this forum is for Senior Chief, lock on a target and discuses. |
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jan 18, 2024 19:29:31 GMT
After reading the great articles you folks graciously made me aware of I think I'll forget about my own version. Subject has been addressed adequately. I have some other ideas that IMO you will find less familiar. Actually I didn't post to deter You from writing Your TL - I tried to find pro's and con's which is always necessary for writing a TL (been up to it a number of times and some of those got written other have been binned and yet others are awaiting more info and inspiration). I do think it is necessary to do discuss issues and also weigh pro's and con's to find that which might make stuff possible or shelve it. 
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jan 20, 2024 0:05:58 GMT
After reading the great articles you folks graciously made me aware of I think I'll forget about my own version. Subject has been addressed adequately. I have some other ideas that IMO you will find less familiar. Actually I didn't post to deter You from writing Your TL - I tried to find pro's and con's which is always necessary for writing a TL (been up to it a number of times and some of those got written other have been binned and yet others are awaiting more info and inspiration). I do think it is necessary to do discuss issues and also weigh pro's and con's to find that which might make stuff possible or shelve it.
Web are all Good. No worries |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Jan 23, 2024 15:59:58 GMT
Late to this conversation, I saw it a few days ago but have been unable to respond... Senior, Look up Operation Round-Up. It was a proposal to put 48 divisions ashore between Le Harve and Boulogne-sur-Mer. You can see a map and some discussion of it in this thread alternate-timelines.com/thread/2882/italy-stays-out-world-war\The map is on back on page 3 of the thread. I the the problem for the Allies would be lift. You might have to pull merchant shipping off the Atlantic run to have enough lift, of the invasion would have to take place in stages. Of course, it would also mean no Husky/Avalanche etc. for Italy in the Med. Regards, |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Feb 27, 2024 23:49:06 GMT
I had heard it would have been a blood bath for the Allies to invade France in June 1943 when they hadn't even started to invade Italy let alone, and had just finished the African campaign a month ago. The allies had only invaded Sicily a month later in July to this proposed D-Day invasion in France.
I wonder what would have happened had the Allies invaded Sicily but not invaded Italy. If the Allies had not invaded Sicily, Italy then it is still on the Axis side because they didn't surrender until after the sicilys invasion. I think the Allies should have invaded Sardina and Corsica for strategic reasons. If the Americans hadn't participated in Africa and had invaded France first, the allied army might have been destroyed as North Africa,taught the GI to duck during fire and other crucial lessons.
|
|
spiegel
Warrant Officer
Posts: 244
Likes: 269
|
Post by spiegel on Feb 28, 2024 10:28:05 GMT
The U.S. learned more on how amphibious operations from the Pacific. Well technically, Operation Torch was an amphibious landing as well. I read from an article in 2016 that the Battle of Tarawa in 1943 is where the U.S. learned lessons on how to conduct the D-Day landings. Meanwhile, the timeline For All Time has the Allies conducting D-Day in 1943 with disastrous results. This aint Wolfenstein though. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 28, 2024 15:56:09 GMT
I had heard it would have been a blood bath for the Allies to invade France in June 1943 when they hadn't even started to invade Sicily and had just finished the African campaign a month ago. I wonder what would have happened had the Allies invaded Sicily but not invaded Italy. If the Allies had not invaded Sicily, then it is still on the Axis side because they didn't surrender until after the Italy invasion. I think the Allies should have invaded Sardina and Corsica for strategic reasons. If the Americans hadn't participated in Africa and had invaded France first, the allied army might have been destroyed as North Africa, and I think it taught the GI to duck during fire and other crucial lessons.
I think its likely to be markedly more challenging that a 44 landing but possibly one clear requirement would be not preventing Operation Torch. That had a number of important affects, most of all freeing up British/Imperial forces in N Africa and also giving both other British and the Americas some battle experience before they tried a major landing on a heavily defended coast. Also the way it went, lasting into March 43 resulting in significant losses to the Germans, both on land and in the air. Mind you that gives no real time for forces to be switched to Britain for a landing in N France.
Possibly if the Torch landings had been made further east as the British wanted and if that worked you could have gained some experienced and possibly polished off Axis resistance in N Africa by the end of 42 that would have given time for forces to be moved north. However it would have meant less experience and also significantly less German losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Feb 28, 2024 16:28:16 GMT
Invading France in 1943 is a assured defeat for the allies. However, it is a wonder if they Allie’s should have invaded other areas . Italy, in the Balkans are mountainous and so is the island of Crete.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 28, 2024 16:33:28 GMT
Invading France in 1943 is a assured defeat for the allies. However, it is a wonder if they Allie’s should have invaded other areas . Italy, in the Balkans are mountainous and so is the island of Crete. As long as we do not discuses ore mention the Friesland option in this thread, i will allow alternative for a 1943 Allied landing in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Feb 28, 2024 19:48:22 GMT
Interesting scenario I looked it up! Since this is a thread about a 1943 June landing in France 🇫🇷 if this was somehow not, Met with disaster then let’s point out the facts first. Operation overlord was not the turning point some people think it was too, to defeat the axis. It was crucial in terms of the preservation of western civilization liberty for the more likely scenario would be if the allies were defeated on D-Day is that the wars outcome would end in a communist takeover of eroupe. To invade France in 1943, is the madman scenario which is more likely to end a disaster that I say the Balkans. The allies were correct, and toughening their armies up and arguably not sending them to the main theaters of operation. (arguably anyone can dispute my claim) I do, however think while the Italian campaign is all right suggestion I think the Al I should have taken over the Greek Islands . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecanese_campaignThis move could have kept the Germans believing into presuming the Americans my made invade the Balkans. I looked it up and in 1943 Its peak was 75,000 men in 1943 . I will argue that a smaller side show may distract the Germans for D-Day which the Germans already were facing,a campaign on many fronts in 1944. Perhaps, if even less troops were committed in the Pacific this 1943 invasion of the front door of France could work. Before Italy and if we’re seriously considering France in the year 43 it’s better to find somewhere else before a grand show in Western Europe |
|
