What if we ignored N. Africa and the MTO?

"Drazen Kramaric" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:07:18 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Because there is no way the invasion could have been successfully
launched
in 1943.

I disagree.


The troops,

There were as many divisions available as they were used between June
6th 1944 and August 1st 1944 on the Normandy bridgehead.


There werent as many available for the follow up
waves however.

landing craft

Allies had enough landing craft to perform Husky in summer 1943 and
Torch in autumn 1942. There were certainly enough craft to land the
five divisions of the first wave and immediate support.


But not the follow up forces

and aircraft were simply not available

Allies had in ETO and MTO at least twice as much aircraft (without
counting strategic bombers) than Luftwaffe had in total. Throughout
1943, Luftwaffe was incapable of preventing Allied air, naval and
ground operations in the Mediterranean. In case of 1943 invasion,
Allied assets that couldn't have been used in the Mediterranean (Air
Defense of Great Britain) would have been utilised.


The Luftwaffed most certainly did cause casualties in Italy in 1943



Some 5000 ships and landing craft, 600,000 tons of supplies and 200,000
vehicles had to be assembled

These were the forces needed to arrive to German border within three
months of D-day, but such requirement would not be necessary condition
for the success of 1943 invasion.


That depends on what you mean by success. Sitting in an enclave
under artillery attack isnt typically considered a success

in addition to the armies and then there's the little matter of winning
air superiority
over the landing beaches. Without the decimation of the Luftwaffe in late
1943 and
early 1944 and lacking long range escort fighters any attempted invasion
would have been exceptionally risky.

Luftwaffe was incapable of defeating Allied air forces in the
Mediterranean. By mid 1943, Allies had twice as much fighters
available as Luftwaffe had. Allied did not need long range escorts for
air superiority over La Manche and bridgehead.


But they did to defeat the German air force in the West
which was much stronger than taht in the med.



As for the MTO it was simply not possible to isolate the German and
Italian armies and ignore them.

Operation Torch was not necessary. If it was skipped, Allies would
have had the resources to establish a second front in north-western
France in 1943.


But not to advance into Germany and win the war which
is the point.


Had they been able to seize the Suez canal and middle east

It's long way from El Agheila to Iraq.


Its a long way fro El Agheila to El Alamein but they managed that

they would have had access to virtually unlimited oil supplies from Iraq

The wells that would have been thoroughly wrecked by retreating
British. It would have taken at least six months to repair the
damages.


Which gives them lots of oil in 1944

In addition, Italy lacked enough tankers to carry the oil.


As it was the forces captured when Tunisia fell were greater than
those captured at Stalingrad and not only was Italy knocked out of
the war but the Germans had to garrison that country as well
thus diverting troops who could have been used to defend
Northern France.

Italian troops were disarmed and sent to work in Germany thus freeing
Germans to man the garrison divisions deployed to replace Italian
divisions. Italians were more efficient working in German war economy
than in Italian one.


How many German workers do you think were suitable to
provide army replacements in 1943 ?

Keith

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:21:57 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


There werent as many available for the follow up
waves however.

In 1944, Allies used around 35 divisions in the period between June
6th, 1944 and August 1st, 1944. Within that period, Allies invaded,
repelled German counterattacks, established a bridgehead, liberated a
major port and on the last day, broke through the German front.

Same number of divisions would have been on Allied disposal if it
weren't for operation Torch.

Allies had enough landing craft to perform Husky in summer 1943 and
Torch in autumn 1942. There were certainly enough craft to land the
five divisions of the first wave and immediate support.


But not the follow up forces

It depends upon what do you call the "follow up" forces. The vessels
used in Torch and Husky (which wouldn't have happened) should have
been enough until the capture of the major port.


The Luftwaffed most certainly did cause casualties in Italy in 1943

In no case Allies suffered prohibitive losses anywhere in the
Mediterranean during 1943. Quite the contrary, it was Luftwaffe that
was taking higher losses and was incapable of preventing Allies from
conducting all sorts of air missions.


That depends on what you mean by success. Sitting in an enclave
under artillery attack isnt typically considered a success

I'd call an establishment of second front in northwest France by
Autumn 1943 a success.


But they did to defeat the German air force in the West
which was much stronger than taht in the med.

In same way, Allied air forces in the West would have been
proportionally stronger if it weren't for redeployment of US air
groups to the Mediterranean. In addition, RAF Fighter Command could
have been utilised.


But not to advance into Germany and win the war which
is the point.

Had Allies established a second front in France by Autumn 1943, they
would have won the war, there is no question about it. It is not
correct to demand the same tempo of advance from 1943 invasion as it
was historically achieved in 1944 because Allies were stronger in 1944
and Germans were weaker. But if Allies liberate Paris in April 1944
that they are definitely ahead of historical schedule.

Allies could afford additional year by spending Soviet lives. There is
little doubt that invading in 1944 was sound political move, I am not
entirely convinced that American and British lives thus saved were
more worth that Soviet ones who were lost in that year when Germans
could deploy the bulk of their ground forces in Russia.


Its a long way fro El Agheila to El Alamein but they managed that

And were stopped. And could not move any further given the historical
level of logistics on their disposal.


Which gives them lots of oil in 1944

By 1944 it doesn't matter any more since Americans are in the theatre
in strength and I don't think a lot of oil automatically means a lot
of tankers or an increased capacity of raphineries or significant
increase of tanks or fighters produced.

Note that captured oil fields in Indonesia never reached the prewar
level of production.


How many German workers do you think were suitable to
provide army replacements in 1943 ?

Enough to cover all sectors previously held by Italians.


Drax
remove NOSPAM for reply