ARGH! I forgot something more:
The Brits were the ones to push the idea of an invasion of France from 1942 to after Torch. They were horribly afraid from paying the butchers bill for any frontal assault, thus also Churchills preference for attacking the soft underbelly of Europe.
An allied, mostly British, defeat in 1943 will create troubles for Churchill. Some will see him as having let Roosevelt boss him into a bloody disaster. The Conservatives werent too thrilled with him anyway.
Maybe a re-shuffle of the government in Britain? Halifax replaces him?
My knowledge of British politics is limited, so all corrections are welcome.
With a still powerful Germany, a non-defeat of Germany at Kursk and a more isolationist congress in the US, that gives interesting possibilities for the Teheran conference in late 1943.
The Soviets will push for a second front - again - and Roosevelt will need something to show in the presidential elections of 1944. Perhaps the Filippines will be enough. But otherwise, a second run on France is probable for 1944.
Henrik
D-DAY: 06 JULY 1943 !!!!
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
-
Dackelstaffel
- Contributor
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:29 pm
Hi Henrik,
Right in 1943 an invasion would have been mostly british....and CANADIANS.
Maybe Sledgehammer was not possible in 1943 and surely postponed in spring 1944 but the allies lost their time in the mediterranean circa. How many divisions in Italy stucked there. The germans could slow and handle a lot of troops on this hard terrain. In France, these divisions could have been more useful. moreover the germans supplies came from Germany in Italy instead of England, if it wasn't farer, for allies divisions.
But anyway this kind of "what if" question is a sort of no lineary equation and leads to the chaos ( I mean the scientific definition : a simple little change of something could have huge consequences like the butterfly effect).
Right in 1943 an invasion would have been mostly british....and CANADIANS.
Maybe Sledgehammer was not possible in 1943 and surely postponed in spring 1944 but the allies lost their time in the mediterranean circa. How many divisions in Italy stucked there. The germans could slow and handle a lot of troops on this hard terrain. In France, these divisions could have been more useful. moreover the germans supplies came from Germany in Italy instead of England, if it wasn't farer, for allies divisions.
But anyway this kind of "what if" question is a sort of no lineary equation and leads to the chaos ( I mean the scientific definition : a simple little change of something could have huge consequences like the butterfly effect).
-
Dackelstaffel
- Contributor
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:29 pm
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
Greetings All -
Thanks! That's the spirit!
Excellent posts!
Henrik:
I, too, had alot of problems with the N.African situation and also came to the conclusion that forces earmarked for Tunis could, and probably would, have been used on the Eastern Front. Even if the offensive had been pushed up some though, I still thought it would result in a Soviet victory due to the advance warnings they had thru their spy contacts. Thus, instead of the Germans being able to call off the Kursk offensive after a relatively short period and divert troops to Sicily/Italy, as they did in real life, I have them in a full blown "fight to the death" melee on 06 July 43 with no reserves to spare [ after all, it is my story
]!
I agree that it wouldn't be likely for the Turks to make any advances into the Balkans with the situation so fluid at Kursk. And, as you point out, with no distractions (vis-a-vis N.Africa), the Italians would most likely have taken over more responsiblities in the Balkans.
In North Africa I see the Brit. 8th Army have a very hard go of it - for all the reasons you stated, but, what (if any) affect could the French have had in Western Africa [and, for that matter, on the continent] if they had heeded DeGaulle's call to "rise up" - as I portrayed in my scenario?
As to the D-Day landings themselves - even with my assumption that the majority of the German strength was tied up at Kursk - I, also, agree it would have been very, very messy. With the limited forces available for the landing at the time (think you forgot us old Canadians in your equation- we had had a full Division+ in England for quite some time) it, in my mind, would have ended up as a similiar opertion to the US invasion of Iraq. By this I mean feeding in units as they become trained and/or available - and that is a very risky business!! Especially with the lack of adequate landing craft etc. at the time.
The political ramifications of an allied defeat (especially US) in 1943 I don't even want to guess at - too big a can of worms thank you!
All just food for thought anyway, and, besides -
who am I to doubt the forcast of such a renowned historian as "Jay Pipes" 
of Field Grey Forum Inc. 
I'll just blame it all on him
Thanks for the input everyone - makes it interesting -
best regards -
Thanks! That's the spirit!
Excellent posts!
Henrik:
I, too, had alot of problems with the N.African situation and also came to the conclusion that forces earmarked for Tunis could, and probably would, have been used on the Eastern Front. Even if the offensive had been pushed up some though, I still thought it would result in a Soviet victory due to the advance warnings they had thru their spy contacts. Thus, instead of the Germans being able to call off the Kursk offensive after a relatively short period and divert troops to Sicily/Italy, as they did in real life, I have them in a full blown "fight to the death" melee on 06 July 43 with no reserves to spare [ after all, it is my story
]!I agree that it wouldn't be likely for the Turks to make any advances into the Balkans with the situation so fluid at Kursk. And, as you point out, with no distractions (vis-a-vis N.Africa), the Italians would most likely have taken over more responsiblities in the Balkans.
In North Africa I see the Brit. 8th Army have a very hard go of it - for all the reasons you stated, but, what (if any) affect could the French have had in Western Africa [and, for that matter, on the continent] if they had heeded DeGaulle's call to "rise up" - as I portrayed in my scenario?
As to the D-Day landings themselves - even with my assumption that the majority of the German strength was tied up at Kursk - I, also, agree it would have been very, very messy. With the limited forces available for the landing at the time (think you forgot us old Canadians in your equation- we had had a full Division+ in England for quite some time) it, in my mind, would have ended up as a similiar opertion to the US invasion of Iraq. By this I mean feeding in units as they become trained and/or available - and that is a very risky business!! Especially with the lack of adequate landing craft etc. at the time.
The political ramifications of an allied defeat (especially US) in 1943 I don't even want to guess at - too big a can of worms thank you!
All just food for thought anyway, and, besides -
who am I to doubt the forcast of such a renowned historian as "Jay Pipes" of Field Grey Forum Inc. I'll just blame it all on him Thanks for the input everyone - makes it interesting -
best regards -
Signed: "The Shadow"
-
Henrik Krog
- Contributor
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 12:50 pm
- Contact:
Hi hadow
If the Germans have more forces, I think they launch Zitadelle earlier - lets say a weak or two. Additional forces would probably go in as reserves to begin with. If they have those ready, they have something to throw in the way of the soviets when they attack the Orel salient.
That, or the earlier start gives the Germans more success in the north (less time for the soviets to fortify) that, combined with more German forces, lets them break through there, too. With Soviet reserves mauled on the southern side of the salient, you COULD have a life or death battle going, with the Germans grasping for the sorrounding of a million Soviets, and the Soviets fighting to avoid it. That might just tempt Hitler too much to make him stop the offensive.
But I will have to find out how many troops would be saved from Africa first. Give me a day.
Actually, I think that if you take away the German forces at Kursk, there is a good chance the Allies can gain a foothold. Depending on how long it takes them to take Cherbourg, they WILL have resupply trouble, though. I think it depends on what other troops are handy to throw agains the landing beaches. There wasnt much armor in France at the time.
Henrik
It is your story, so fight to the death it is. Its doable, too.Shadow wrote:I, too, had alot of problems with the N.African situation and also came to the conclusion that forces earmarked for Tunis could, and probably would, have been used on the Eastern Front. Even if the offensive had been pushed up some though, I still thought it would result in a Soviet victory due to the advance warnings they had thru their spy contacts. Thus, instead of the Germans being able to call off the Kursk offensive after a relatively short period and divert troops to Sicily/Italy, as they did in real life, I have them in a full blown "fight to the death" melee on 06 July 43 with no reserves to spare [ after all, it is my story
If the Germans have more forces, I think they launch Zitadelle earlier - lets say a weak or two. Additional forces would probably go in as reserves to begin with. If they have those ready, they have something to throw in the way of the soviets when they attack the Orel salient.
That, or the earlier start gives the Germans more success in the north (less time for the soviets to fortify) that, combined with more German forces, lets them break through there, too. With Soviet reserves mauled on the southern side of the salient, you COULD have a life or death battle going, with the Germans grasping for the sorrounding of a million Soviets, and the Soviets fighting to avoid it. That might just tempt Hitler too much to make him stop the offensive.
But I will have to find out how many troops would be saved from Africa first. Give me a day.
They would never ever rise up heeding a call from deGaulle or the British. The people in control in north Africa detested both because they had sunk the French squadron at Oran and killed thousands of Frenchmen (and colonials) attacking Syria, Lebanon, French Equatorial Africa (my favourite campaign) and Madagascar. Now if you make it a US call, it might happen. But in no way if there are not any Allied troops to back them up, especially if the Axis is till holding on in Libya, and have troops in Tunisia. So I kinda doubt any French rising there. Not yet, at least, unless you come up with something else.Shadow wrote:In North Africa I see the Brit. 8th Army have a very hard go of it - for all the reasons you stated, but, what (if any) affect could the French have had in Western Africa [and, for that matter, on the continent] if they had heeded DeGaulle's call to "rise up" - as I portrayed in my scenario?
You mean they would have defeated Hitler in under a month, suffering less than 200 casualties?? :-)Shadow wrote:As to the D-Day landings themselves - even with my assumption that the majority of the German strength was tied up at Kursk - I, also, agree it would have been very, very messy. With the limited forces available for the landing at the time (think you forgot us old Canadians in your equation- we had had a full Division+ in England for quite some time) it, in my mind, would have ended up as a similiar opertion to the US invasion of Iraq. -
Actually, I think that if you take away the German forces at Kursk, there is a good chance the Allies can gain a foothold. Depending on how long it takes them to take Cherbourg, they WILL have resupply trouble, though. I think it depends on what other troops are handy to throw agains the landing beaches. There wasnt much armor in France at the time.
I would guess increased domestic turmoil in the US. As was, the US was wracked with interracial rioting (from the Zoot Suit Riots on the west coast to the Harlem riots in New York), mutinies, even fighting between black and white army units during 1943. The Allied victories made things quite a bit better, but remove them, and people will be looking for scapegoats. For sure the blacks themselves, but probably also the democrat integrationists.Shadow wrote:The political ramifications of an allied defeat (especially US) in 1943 I don't even want to guess at - too big a can of worms thank you!-
Henrik
Hi Henrik !
Just a quick note before the master starts yanking on my "ball and chain" -
On second thought, I don't think my (our) assumption that the troops sent to Tunisia in Nov. 42 would have been a factor in the Kursk battle in July 43. The odds-and-ends that were scraped together and sent to Tunisia after the 08 Nov. "Torch" landings surely would have gone east to combat the 19 Nov. 42 Soviet pincer attack to surround Stalingrad.
If that had been the case, I doubt those limited reserves would have changed the outcome much! Too little - too late!
Going with the above thread - no change then in the outcome of the Kursk offensive!
This, I think, would have made the D-Day situation even worse if you look at the list of units that were funneled into Italy from Kursk to combat the Sicily invasion and, instead, picture them being sent straight to Normandy?
As for the "French" situation - yep! I know! - no love lost between them and the British! But with an ALLIED (including Free French) landing on FRENCH SOIL - might not a "popular uprising" have been a possibility? The Germans might have been hard pressed to occupy Vichy while trying to counter the Normanie beachhead. The story in French North Africa would have been different: no "Torch" = more Italian troops available to suppress and problems there.
RECAP: 1.Kursh/Orel happen historically and Soviets purse to limits of their supply lines. 2. Allies hanging on by a thread in Normandy. 3. Unrest in Vichy - some German troops diverted from north & Italian 4th Army (re-enforced) attacks from the south-east. 4. British 8th Army keeps pressure up in Africa. 5. Balkan situation stays fluid (Tito & the resistance continually causing more problems). 5. Churchill facing heat in the House of Commons due to situation on the continent & letting Britain be dragged into a northern invasion by Roosevelt.
oops - gotta run "master's voice and all that "
regards and hope to hear more from you!
Just a quick note before the master starts yanking on my "ball and chain" -
On second thought, I don't think my (our) assumption that the troops sent to Tunisia in Nov. 42 would have been a factor in the Kursk battle in July 43. The odds-and-ends that were scraped together and sent to Tunisia after the 08 Nov. "Torch" landings surely would have gone east to combat the 19 Nov. 42 Soviet pincer attack to surround Stalingrad.
If that had been the case, I doubt those limited reserves would have changed the outcome much! Too little - too late!
Going with the above thread - no change then in the outcome of the Kursk offensive!
This, I think, would have made the D-Day situation even worse if you look at the list of units that were funneled into Italy from Kursk to combat the Sicily invasion and, instead, picture them being sent straight to Normandy?
As for the "French" situation - yep! I know! - no love lost between them and the British! But with an ALLIED (including Free French) landing on FRENCH SOIL - might not a "popular uprising" have been a possibility? The Germans might have been hard pressed to occupy Vichy while trying to counter the Normanie beachhead. The story in French North Africa would have been different: no "Torch" = more Italian troops available to suppress and problems there.
RECAP: 1.Kursh/Orel happen historically and Soviets purse to limits of their supply lines. 2. Allies hanging on by a thread in Normandy. 3. Unrest in Vichy - some German troops diverted from north & Italian 4th Army (re-enforced) attacks from the south-east. 4. British 8th Army keeps pressure up in Africa. 5. Balkan situation stays fluid (Tito & the resistance continually causing more problems). 5. Churchill facing heat in the House of Commons due to situation on the continent & letting Britain be dragged into a northern invasion by Roosevelt.
oops - gotta run "master's voice and all that
"regards and hope to hear more from you!
Signed: "The Shadow"
ALLIED Oob JULY 43 ??
ANYBODY -
Anybody got an idea of what Allied (US,Brit,Cdn,Pol,French) forces would have been available in July 43 for our D-Day scenario???
Anybody got an idea of what Allied (US,Brit,Cdn,Pol,French) forces would have been available in July 43 for our D-Day scenario???
Signed: "The Shadow"
-
Lupo Solitario
- Contributor
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 12:15 am
- Location: Italy, EU
Hi Guys (particular to Henrik - it's bit I got no your news, mate! - but I know you can't resist a what-if... )
well, the question was: what would have happened in italy without torch?
Difficult to say.
1) Between 10/42 and 5/43 italy lost THREE armies, one at alamein, one in russia and one in tunisia. This practically annichilated italian military power and distrusted fascist party and Mussolini. It's true that operations to remove Mussolini started after loss of Tunisia but the first "movement" in italian leadership happened in february ie after the distruction of expedionary army in russia (removal of foreign secretary, joint chief of staff, etc.) The new leader group had a trend towards the king more than the precedent.
2) The invasion of Vichy territories happened as an answer to Torch, no Torch, no invasion I suppose
3) Italian military couldn't be strechted towards Balkans more than it was in 1943
4) Apart 10th PzDiv it doesn't seem me german had committed to Tunisia a so huge force
5) Malta was still in British hands; the presence of US air and naval force in the Med was essential in destroying italian ones in winter 1942-43; the strategical bombing campiagn on italy became really hard in the same period. Italy never developed an efficient air defence
6) Italian production was in crisis and almost totally affording on german supplies
Anyway, try to think to a timeline...hmm, Rommel could reach to reorganize and keep a line somewhere east of Sirte, but after? With Malta, axis supply lines had been always under attack while 8th army could continue to reinforce. In 8 months everything could happen.
Alternative: Axis occupies Tunisia anyway. But this could drive Vichy in allies field, De gaulle or not.
In February, the shock of destruction of ARMIR and the new strategic bombing campaign (it started from UK so we can suppose it happened anyway) and a new shortage of resources...
In other words, we have an italy with a beachhead around Tripoli, an army spread in balkans and anyway overstrenght. The Mussolini gov is not so distrusted as in OTL but germans are usually bad seen and a successful allies landings would be a trouble for the fascist rule.
Ok I've not really answered but I hope having given some idea
bye
Lupo
- but I know you can't resist a what-if... )well, the question was: what would have happened in italy without torch?
Difficult to say.
1) Between 10/42 and 5/43 italy lost THREE armies, one at alamein, one in russia and one in tunisia. This practically annichilated italian military power and distrusted fascist party and Mussolini. It's true that operations to remove Mussolini started after loss of Tunisia but the first "movement" in italian leadership happened in february ie after the distruction of expedionary army in russia (removal of foreign secretary, joint chief of staff, etc.) The new leader group had a trend towards the king more than the precedent.
2) The invasion of Vichy territories happened as an answer to Torch, no Torch, no invasion I suppose
3) Italian military couldn't be strechted towards Balkans more than it was in 1943
4) Apart 10th PzDiv it doesn't seem me german had committed to Tunisia a so huge force
5) Malta was still in British hands; the presence of US air and naval force in the Med was essential in destroying italian ones in winter 1942-43; the strategical bombing campiagn on italy became really hard in the same period. Italy never developed an efficient air defence
6) Italian production was in crisis and almost totally affording on german supplies
Anyway, try to think to a timeline...hmm, Rommel could reach to reorganize and keep a line somewhere east of Sirte, but after? With Malta, axis supply lines had been always under attack while 8th army could continue to reinforce. In 8 months everything could happen.
Alternative: Axis occupies Tunisia anyway. But this could drive Vichy in allies field, De gaulle or not.
In February, the shock of destruction of ARMIR and the new strategic bombing campaign (it started from UK so we can suppose it happened anyway) and a new shortage of resources...
In other words, we have an italy with a beachhead around Tripoli, an army spread in balkans and anyway overstrenght. The Mussolini gov is not so distrusted as in OTL but germans are usually bad seen and a successful allies landings would be a trouble for the fascist rule.
Ok I've not really answered but I hope having given some idea
bye
Lupo
-
John Kilmartin
- Contributor
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
By the end of 1942 all three Canadian Infantry Divisions were in the UK as well as the Canadian 5th Armoured Division. I am not sure about the status of the Independent Tank Brigades. The 2nd Canadian Infantry Division wasn't in good enough shape to be sent to Sicily so they probably would have not been part of an initial landing in France in 1943. I will see what I can find out about the British and Polish forces available at the time but I would think they would be minimal with the 8th Army gobbling up reinforcements on a priority basis. The Poles might be in a better position.
' Strip war of the mantle of its glories and excitement, and it will disclose a gibbering ghost of pain , grief, dissappointment and despair'
Greetings John!
Don't go to too much trouble - this was just a "what if" type scenario I posted back in October 2003 as a kind of fun project!
Not to be taken too seriously!
best regards to the "land of the chinooks"!
p.s.- If memory serves me:
As well as the 1st - 2nd - 3rd Cdn.Inf.Divs. -
*4 Cdn.Arm.Div.:
- 3 Cdn.Arm.Bde.
- 2 Cdn.Army Tank Bde.
*5 Cdn.Arm.Div:
- 1 Cdn.Arm.Bde.
- 2 Cdn.Arm.Bde.
* 1 Cdn.Army Tank Bde.
* 1 Cdn.Anti-Aircraft Bde.
Were all in UK by summer 1943, with 6th - 7th - 8th Cdn.Inf.Divs. and 4 Cdn.Arm.Bde. at home in various stages of "working up".
Don't go to too much trouble - this was just a "what if" type scenario I posted back in October 2003 as a kind of fun project!
Not to be taken too seriously!
best regards to the "land of the chinooks"!
p.s.- If memory serves me:
As well as the 1st - 2nd - 3rd Cdn.Inf.Divs. -
*4 Cdn.Arm.Div.:
- 3 Cdn.Arm.Bde.
- 2 Cdn.Army Tank Bde.
*5 Cdn.Arm.Div:
- 1 Cdn.Arm.Bde.
- 2 Cdn.Arm.Bde.
* 1 Cdn.Army Tank Bde.
* 1 Cdn.Anti-Aircraft Bde.
Were all in UK by summer 1943, with 6th - 7th - 8th Cdn.Inf.Divs. and 4 Cdn.Arm.Bde. at home in various stages of "working up".
Signed: "The Shadow"