British/Commonwealth D-Day

[Xhavnak]

Inspired by this thread: Here

What would have happened if in the case of no american entry into WW2 the British and Commonwealth forces had launched their own version of D-Day ? What sort of difference would it make and would it have gone as well as OTL's version.

The base scenario is one where the war progresses roughly as OTL although the Axis does better because of lack of US forces. However by 1944/1945 ish the situation is similar to the one for our D-Day with Allied forces having liberated Africa and pushing through Italy and Eastern Europe.

What would the British have done differently given the oppertunity to plan it alone ? How many troops would they land and would free/empire forces get their own landing beaches as the Canadians did ?

Apologies if this has been discussed before: Search down.

[StevoJH]

I'm guessing that the Commonwealth/Empire would have focused on the Far East Initially, clearing the Japanese out of Burma, Malaya, Indochina and Possibly some of the larger Islands of the DEI so that they could reduce the size of forces present in that theatre and redeploy them to Europe.

The Empire/Commonwealth didn't have the forces available to Invade Europe while simultaneously having a couple of Million (there were 3 million in the Indian Army alone) Soldiers fighting in the Far East as well.

[Xhavnak]

Originally Posted by StevoJH

I'm guessing that the Commonwealth/Empire would have focused on the Far East Initially

Assuming this is after the British have completed other theatres to their satisfaction and are landing after getting bogged down in Italy as OTL, they are going it alone so can land when they want. IOTL British formed half the landing force whilst they were conducting several campagins so I dont think this is impossible. It may limit the size of the landing army though, either that or a greater commonwealth army is landed.

As the British emphasis was on the Med perhaps this would be more akin to Dragoon.

[StevoJH]

Originally Posted by Xhavnak

Assuming this is after the British have completed other theatres to their satisfaction and are landing after getting bogged down in Italy as OTL, they are going it alone so can land when they want. IOTL British formed half the landing force whilst they were conducting several campagins so I dont think this is impossible. It may limit the size of the landing army though, either that or a greater commonwealth army is landed.

As the British emphasis was on the Med perhaps this would be more akin to Dragoon.

Its not the Landing forces where I see them having problems, but rather the followon forces. *Unless* sufficient Indian and African troops can be freed up for the invasion of Europe.

[pdf27]

Would there even BE a D-Day? Until the US entered the war the plan was to fight the Germans with Bomber Command and win the war that way. A D-Day equivalent (and follow on battles) would need many more troops than the UK had to hand - that means stripping back other forces (goodbye Bomber Command?) as well as a much bigger Indian army fighting in Europe, which in turn needs political changes to happen probably before the start of the war.

[Simreeve]

It also means diverting a lot of shipbuilding capacity for the construction of landing craft, much of which OTL was done in the USA instead...

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by pdf27

Would there even BE a D-Day? Until the US entered the war the plan was to fight the Germans with Bomber Command and win the war that way. A D-Day equivalent (and follow on battles) would need many more troops than the UK had to hand - that means stripping back other forces (goodbye Bomber Command?) as well as a much bigger Indian army fighting in Europe, which in turn needs political changes to happen probably before the start of the war.

Exactly. Churchill was also fixated by the "soft underbelly" It was the US that pushed for the invasion of France, as soon as possible. Once North Africa was secured, I suspect the Commonwealth would emphasize an invasion of Italy and further invasions of the Balkans. The only thing that might change that would be threats by Stalin that he might negotiate a separate peace with Germany unless a true "western front" was opened.

I do question if the RAF alone could have much to affect the outcome. Although the overall value of the OTL allied bombing campaign is open to debate, there is no doubt it benefited from the massive USAAF daylight raids, particularly in the attrition of the Luftwaffe. An RAF campaign at night, focusing only on "dehousing" millions of civilian workers, would have far less value.

[AdA]

Before the Brits could think about landing in France in force they would have to be in a position of advantage that gave them enough security of winning. Since they rellied heavily on US help for everything, my guess is D Day would be timed to coincide with the beguining of the final russian attack on Berlin, wich might happen a bit later since there would be more german resources to slow them down.
If no US means no help of any kind, we are getting in one of those arguments were AHistorians claim that:
1. The war would end exactly the same way without US help.
2. The US had a decisive role in winning the war.
Wich is the kind of double thinking George Orwell would love to watch in action.