Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

D Day 1943

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 19th August 2005

  Another "what if"
  
  If the Allies had made a D Day landing in 1943 instead of '44 could they have beaten the Germans before the Russians had a chance to take over E. Europe?

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Friday, 19th August 2005

  Hi Gaiseric,
  I think the answer has to be no. in 1943 we (UK and US) were heavlly supplying the USSR to maintain the presuure on the Germans on the Eastern Front thus to a certain extent draining german resources from the Western Front.
  Also as the raid on Deppie showed the men and marterial required for a seaborn invasion of Europe far exceeded what the Allies had available in 1943.
  Very briefly I trust this is of help
  Spike

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Ice Cool (U1524764) on Friday, 19th August 2005

  Gaiseric
  
  I do not believe we had either the human or the non human resources available at that time.
  
  The delays were essentually a deliberate attempt to ensure that we had everything ready before we went over the top. Had we gone too early we may have had a longer and harder battle with less prepared and less equiped troops.
  
  The other advantage was that by 1944 the setbacks on the Eastern Front were looking perminat and German resources had tipped in favour of that front. In 1943 this balance had not quite been reached.
  
  Maybe if we had been spectacularily lucky we may have pulled it off. Though I doubt it.
  
  

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Friday, 19th August 2005

  We did pull it off.
  
  Think "Italy."

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  Augray
  
  True we landed in Italy in 43 but that was a radically different matter. The aims were limited, to knock Italy out of the war and ease the problem of sending shipping through the Med., which were achieved. More importantly it was a far more easily controlled front in which we could use our naval and air power and initially there were very few German forces. The Germans had to retreat to the Gothic line else they would have been isolated and destroyed and this secure a viable base. Also the earlier operations in N Africa and Sicily gave us good bases.
  
  A landing in France would have been far more difficult. Although the bulk of the German forces were on the eastern front already and Rommel's frantic operations to construct defences had not yet started the Germans were in a much better position compared to the allies. We lacked the bulk of the landing equipment and close support facilities that enabled us to concentrate firepower against enemy targets. Also, other than the relatively small number of American troops who had seen action in N Africa their troops were not experienced and far less in numbers. Britain was also facing serious problems which the clearing of the Med. and decline of the Japanese helped to ease. This is especially important in that France would have been a far broader front than Italy, requiring larger forces. Also, it was only in the early part of the year that the war turned decisively against the U-boats in the Atlantic. Until that point not only were the forces not available in Britain but we couldn't rely on either getting them there or supplying their base of operations.
  
  Your right in the fact that we did open a 2nd front in Italy. By knocking Italy out of the war and tying up sizeable German resources, both in Italy and the Balkans it helped the allies considerably. The D Day landings were more accuracy a 3rd front but Stalin had reasons to dismiss the Italian operation for his own propaganda. If that's what you meant you are perfectly right. However if you meant you think we could have successfully landing in France in 43 I would have to disagree with you.
  
  Ste
  

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Ice Cool (U1524764) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  Augray
  
  I agree to a point. Yes we would have probably one in the end but I doubt it would have meant any real gains in territory for the Western powers or any real reduction in the lenght of the war.
  
  Italy was different for all of reasons that Steve P has pointed out. Though it has to be said that we struggled in Italy and it was not an unmitigated success. The Allies learned a lot from that campaign and that assisted the Normandy landings.
  
  Cheers
  
  

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Sunday, 21st August 2005

  OK. I was not claiming that the landings in italy were capable of ending the war in the West, although there is still a question mark over the potential for Churchill's Balkan or "soft underbelly" strategy - could it have worked? Would it have been a better option than "Overlord"? I don't think so, but I still wonder ...

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  There is always the argument that the allies in 44 could have pushed up into Germany via North Italy and avoided "overlord" and the massive commitment to liberating France.
  
  Instead they (allies)could of channelled all available man / equipment power to directly attacking Germany via the med and Italy and arguably shortened the war?
  
  

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  Grimbling
  
  I think a Balkan offensive could have worked in terms of landing successfully and quickly liberating the bulk of the area. Probably more rapidly than the Soviets as one reason why the various minor states fought so long was because they were fearful of Stalin. Although the terrain was possibly less favourable, at least until you get onto the Danubian plains it gives a broad front to stretch the limited German forces there while the poorer transport links would have hindered German reinforcements of the region.
  
  However neither France nor the Balkans were in themselves vital to the defeat of the Nazis. To do that we had to destroy their power centre by occupying Germany itself. Operating via the Balkans would have meant on a common front with the Red Army, with all the problems that would have meant. Especially since with Stalin's paranoia and Churchill’s concerns over Poland relations would probably have been rocky. However it would have eased supplying Russia, especially since we might have swung Turkish entry into the war, opening up the straits. A more important plus might be that sizeable German forces would still have been tied up in France and the west to prevent an invasion there.
  
  On the down side, although we would probably deny them Germans Rumanian oil earlier they would still have the resources of western Europe to call upon. The U boats, restricted as they were, would have their based in Biscay and Hitler's V weapons would have operated longer. Also, with their defences unbreached the Germans would have caused heavier losses during the bombing campaign.
  
  Possibly we might have defeated Germany earlier. One what if I read on this suggested victory by the end of 1944, partly because it enabled US resources to be used more efficiently. It might not have changed the total death toll much as a lot of hard fighting would have resulted. What would have been different would have been the political situation in eastern Europe. Stalin would control much less of Europe, although this might change if the US withdrew as it did historically as Stalin would probably seize the region by force.
  
  Steve
  

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  re: message 7.
  
  Gilgamesh,
  
  you did it again...
  
  ISIRTA was a top radio comedy show in the 1960s and early -70s starring Bill Oddie, John Cleese and others.
  
  CD. nr 44 ISIRTA 670709 series 4 episode 12 The inimitable grimbling. mp.3.
  
  But John Cleese was not butler in Fawlty Towers?
  
  Kind Regards,
  
  Paul from Bruges.

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Gilgamesh of Uruk (U211168) on Monday, 22nd August 2005

  It wasn't John Cleese who played me - it was Bill Oddie, who also represented Spot the dog, and Nosebone the Great White Hunter.

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 29th August 2005

  Gentleman: If a Yank may be allowed to stick his big nose in; IMO in 1943 the allies weren't properly prepared for a full invasion. Also, to have invaded through the Balkins or northern Italy would have been trecherous.
  
  TOO many mountains in the Balkins. The Germans proved in 1944 they new how to fight a defensive war when they had to.
  
  To have invaded via northern Italy would have exposed our fleet/aircraft to German aircraft and artillary from central and Southern Italy. (I am assuming you first took Sicily)And please don't forget the Alps.
  
  While politically it may not have been the best stragedy, it was, IMO, the best militarily. (forgive the spelling)

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 3rd September 2005

  Re: message 11.
  
  Gilgamesh,
  
  thank you for the information.
  
  Kind regards.

  Link to this forum: D Day 1943

  Report message13

Back to top