1943 Invasion of France

[SK85]

In the Western Allies focused all their available political, military, and industrial resources to invadin Northern France in the spring of 1943 could they have been successfull? In this ATL assume the England and France put only enough force in the Pacific to keep the Japanese from making further conquests (i.e. Australia) and send everything else to England.

Thanks for any responses
Sk85

 

[Tony Williams]

Some of the problems with a 1943 D-day:

- the battle against the U-boats needed to have won months earlier, to make it feasible to ship the large quantity of men and supplies across the Atlantic

- there may not have been enough landing craft etc available, unless planning and construction had started a year earlier

- the USAAF wouldn't have had as long to chew up the Luftwaffe's fighters in the daylight raids over Germany

- the German army would have been in better shape, not having suffered a further year of being drained by the Eastern Front.

OTOH, the German defences on the Channel coast would not have been so well developed (assuming that they had little notice - which might not have been the case).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Karlos]

I think the strengh of the Luftwaffe would be a major factor. The Atlantic Coast defences would not matter much, as in OTL they did llittle more than cause some extra casualties to the allies, but a counterattack with decent air cover...
BTW, if the allies land just before Kursk, how will it affect the eastern front? Would Hitler cancel Citadelle, with all possible consequences?

 

[Derek Jackson]

Is Northern France the only place to have attacked the Continent. I do not know but I ask about Belguin/ Netherlands (especially if a Port could somehow be captured) also Denmark?

 

[Redbeard]

An allied build-up for a 1943 invasion can hardly go on unnoticed, and my guess is, that this will have the Germans scale down ambitions on the east Front. So instead of building up for Kursk, at least part of the "panzer cream" is diverted to a central reserve in France. In effect that will mean, short of the Führer sleeping for a week and no orders issued, that any allied landing will probably be thrown into the sea by a counterattack.

In 1944 such counterattacks would be up against an overwhelming allied airsuperiority and a respectable groundattack capacity, but in 1943 the allies will be lucky if they can gain airsuperiority. And even if they do, their effective ground attack capcity will be very limited.

Landing craft probably could scraped together, but only by postpoing landing operations elsewhere, incl. the Pacific. Next problem is logistics as there will be no Mulberry or fuel pipeline. So the allies are even more dependent on quickly gaining control of an intact major port, In OTL that took months, but in this TL the allied army will have to rely on supplies going over the beach. In that way you can sypply a handful of Divisions, but not the two armygroups needed to defeat the Germans.

In the East a defensive mode will not put the Germans in any worse situation than they were in after Kursk. On the contrary the by 1943 perfected defensive tactics of the German Army will have a chance of putting casualty rates more in favour of the Germans.

Shore defenses will be much less comprehensive by 1943, but in OTL the 1944 defenses were far from stopping the invasion anyway. The critical moment was not the initial landing itself, but the weeks until a sufficient force could be landed and supplied - and break out. In 1944 the Germans lacked a substantial counterattack capacity, and what mainly held back the allies was defensive terrain. If still happening in Normandy that terrain should also be favourable to the allies resisting a German counterattack, but I'm not sure allied tactics and experience by 1943 will be up to it - terrain or not.

I'm not aware of how advanced the defenses at Pas de Calais were by 1943, but if far from the 1944 level, the shot distance to cover might have the allies choose that landing site, but will also be more exposed to counterattacks.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Molobo]

In the Western Allies focused all their available political, military, and industrial resources to invadin Northern France in the spring of 1943 could they have been successfull?

There was such a plan, I can't recall its complete name, but was to be put in place if Soviet Union would be on the bring of collapse, it estimated heavy casualites /up to 500.000 I think/

 

[Redbeard]

The Germans feared a landing in Denmark enough to build thousands of concrete bunkers and gun emplacements (incl. 15" guns) on the Jutland west coast - you can still see them, the museum at Hanstholm in an old 15" emplacement is highly recomendable. I'm not sure a landing in Jutland would be that good an idea though, it would be too difficult to gain airsuperiority and even if they can gain control of Jutland the access to the continent can still be blocked comfortably by a handful of Divisions. In WWI the Germans relied on a defensive line dug in across the southern part of the Jutland peninsula, 10-20km north of the present Danish-German border.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[wkwillis]

Yes. The Germans were busy at a place called Kursk and had some trouble shuttling troops back. Lousy railroad logistics, not like Poland.

 

[SK85]

Counterattack

If the Allies tried to invade in 1943 they could have still gone ahead with the "Transportation Plan" which destroyed most of the bridges across the Seine in the months before D-Day. Losses to the aircrews might have been higher but this plan would have forced the Luftwaffe to attack Allied bombers within range of fighters like the P-38 and P-47. These air battles might have been able to wear down the strength of the Luftwaffe not like in the OTL but could have significantly hurt their fighter strength.

The Allies could still have deceived the Germans as to the exact place and time of the landing giving the soldiers an extra day to set up a beachead. If the Allies could get air superiority just around the invasion area and assualt against France could have had a chance to succeed.

 

[Redbeard]

If the Allies tried to invade in 1943 they could have still gone ahead with the "Transportation Plan" which destroyed most of the bridges across the Seine in the months before D-Day. Losses to the aircrews might have been higher but this plan would have forced the Luftwaffe to attack Allied bombers within range of fighters like the P-38 and P-47. These air battles might have been able to wear down the strength of the Luftwaffe not like in the OTL but could have significantly hurt their fighter strength.

The Allies could still have deceived the Germans as to the exact place and time of the landing giving the soldiers an extra day to set up a beachead. If the Allies could get air superiority just around the invasion area and assualt against France could have had a chance to succeed.

But even if the allies can gain airsuperiority over the bridgehead, and that is questionable, it can only be used defensively, as they have little training, tactics or equipment in ground support. Interdiction would be more in accordance with training etc., but even by late 44 the Germans could unseen by night move 25 Divisions forward for the battle of the Bulge. And by 43 the allies are very unlikely to have airsuperiority over the assembly areas of the German mobile reserve.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Derek Jackson]

I accept that for this idea to be viable there would have to be an earlier victory in the Battle of the Atlantic.

But there were some allied advantages which can be overlooked. The Germans really were fooled by agents who preferred to accept British control rather than be hanged (sadly Roosevelt preferred the propaganda advantage of executing sabateurs)

If the Nazis were convinced that there would be huge landings in Italy and the Balkans and the allies managed the element of surprise and to take a port or two....

If this works does it prevent the Cold War?

If so what is the effect on Western Politics?

 

[Melvin Loh]

There was a book written in 1980 or thereabouts on this very issue, which discussed all the reasons why a 1943 cross-Channel invasion could've succeeded, and was necessary to win the war earlier. There was also an article by the same author IIRC in HISTORY TODAY 1994.

 

[SK85]

Second Front Book

I believe the book that your are talking about is "1943: The Victory That Never Was" by John Grigg. I have read the book and it is okay. It is about 300 pages and goes into some detail about a possible invasion of France in 43. Not a great book but an interesting piece of semi-alterantive history. I think that it is worth spending $5 for on Amazon.

SK85

 

[Redbeard]

I accept that for this idea to be viable there would have to be an earlier victory in the Battle of the Atlantic.

But there were some allied advantages which can be overlooked. The Germans really were fooled by agents who preferred to accept British control rather than be hanged (sadly Roosevelt preferred the propaganda advantage of executing sabateurs)

If the Nazis were convinced that there would be huge landings in Italy and the Balkans and the allies managed the element of surprise and to take a port or two....

If this works does it prevent the Cold War?

If so what is the effect on Western Politics?

The allies will not be helped much by achieving surprise at the landing site, as they anyway need weeks at least to build up a force sufficiently strong to repel a 1943 German counterattack. And even if that succeeds you still have the problem of supplying the outbreak of the bridgehead. For that you need good ports, but access to such is easy through demolition etc. Not for ever, but no problem for the first critical weeks/months. AFAIK the first stages of the German anti-invasion defenses were exactly preparing defence/demolition of ports. For my sake they could have left it there and saved all the effort with the beach defenses (much like Rundstedt advocated).

In that context the Mulberry, the fuel-pipeline and the overwhelming airsuperiority over all of France in 1944 are top priority factors for the 1944 invasion succeeding, and none of these were present in 1943.

But if we now some-how have a 1943 invasion suceed anyway, after all anything can happen in war, I don't see why it should mean no cold war. The Iron Curtain would descend further to the east, perhaps at the 1939 SU border, but as long as there is a SU there will also be a cold war. I guess the feeling of being surrounded and under siege will be even stronger in the SU, and this could in worst case have them do something desperate - with nukes...

But I doubt the SU will last as long as in OTL.

If Germany is done with by 1943 or 1944, the British will probably undertake their own campaign to liberate SEA (that was the original plan). That will strengthen the prospects of keeping together the Empire after the war, but will also to a degree set UK and USA apart.

I'm not sure if NATO is made in this scenario, the Europeans will feel more confident that they can manage the Soviets without selling their full independence and the Americans will be pissed over the Empires still being there. But there will probably still be some kind of alliance, but not in the institutionalised character of NATO.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Derek Jackson]

But if we now some-how have a 1943 invasion suceed anyway, after all anything can happen in war, I don't see why it should mean no cold war. The Iron Curtain would descend further to the east, perhaps at the 1939 SU border, but as long as there is a SU there will also be a cold war. I guess the feeling of being surrounded and under siege will be even stronger in the SU, and this could in worst case have them do something desperate - with nukes...

As I see it a large part of the cause of the Cold War from the Western perspective was the feeling that the Soviet Union had cheated, especially over the Polish elections.

If Poland has Western organized elections that will not happen. Stalin will not attack Poland or anywhere else after Germany's defeat, he wold have not only be be evil (which he was) but also VERY stupid (which mostly he was NOT)

 

[Earling]

The thing is.. I cant really see how the western allies is going to be able to save Poland from Soviet influence. Unless you somehow believe they can drive to Berlin, then quite possibly to the Polish-Soviet border without the Soviets making any significant gains due to the diminishment of opposition as units are sent west.

 

[SK85]

Mullberry

The Mulberry Harbor is something that could have been built during any time of the war. It was not a revolutionary technogical advance like jet engines or the Atomic Bomb. If the need for a temporary artificial harbor was recognized then a Mullberry type system could have been built by 1943.

Also one reason why the Allies could not capture ports in 1944 was because the Germans had spent considerable time building defenses facing away the sea in early 1944. Invading a year earlier would have left those defenses much worse.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The Mulberry Harbor is something that could have been built during any time of the war. It was not a revolutionary technogical advance like jet engines or the Atomic Bomb. If the need for a temporary artificial harbor was recognized then a Mullberry type system could have been built by 1943.

Also one reason why the Allies could not capture ports in 1944 was because the Germans had spent considerable time building defenses facing away the sea in early 1944. Invading a year earlier would have left those defenses much worse.

Not enough, with the Luftwaffe very much still around the Germans drive the Allies back into the sea.

 

[Matthew Craw]

If the Western Allies invade France in late Spring/early Summer 193 they'll be doing so before kursk - which means that within a few weeks (a month or two at most) the Germans will be able to hurl the most powerful offensive force ever seen against a Western bridgehead manned by forces at a considerable tactical disadvantage, while these might survive they would find themselves confined to fairly narrow coatal enclaves until 1944 in a campign probably resembling quite closely OTL's Italian offensives, this being, remeber, the best case scenario.

Meanwhile, the Russians are able to overun the Western Ukraine rather more quickly, and ith much lower losses, than in OTL, and may well still win the race to Berlin. They would certainly still finish the war well outside the USSR's 1939 (and probably even her 1941) borders.

The only substantive difference resulting from this POD would be massive increases in Anglo-American losses, although an earlier end to the European war would have had ramifications in the Pacific as well.

 

[General_Paul]

Guys guys, we are forgetting the most important reason as to why this wouldn't happen: Erwin Rommel. He's still trodding around North Africa with his Afrika Korps, and he's got the logistics to press an attack if need be. If we're focused on a N. France Landing, he's gonna kick Monty's ass all the way back to Cairo before anyone notices, or has the ability to fight it. Operation Torch only happened in November, 1942, and the americans in N. Africa don't have the offensive capability to take care of Rommel, like they did in OTL. And, if the Americans and brits were focused in on a 1943 Normandy-esque landing, there might not BE an operation torch, leaving montgomery high and dry in North Africa with a minimal armored corps to take care of Erwin Rommel's substantial force.

If the allies loose in North Africa, then the landing in France will be a mute point, because then Hitler's got the fuel, maybe not the material, but the Crude Oil in the Middle east to fight on indefinately, or untill that fuel runs out, which we haven't even drained all of it yet. So, in closing: In TTL, N. Africa will either be a loss for the allies, or a long and dragged out process, and the war in France will probably be much worse than OTL's Overlord + Bocage break out.