AHC: Nazis never take over Italian-occupied territory, Allies still win on-time, on-budget

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
To catch up a little



No, I think some examination of the question is necessary.




'Implication' is one label. A close look at the difficulties the Germans had using horse drawn artillery and transport in 75% of their ground combat divisions is useful.



Both. Until the Italian surrender its much more useful to consider the air war in the MTO in the aggregate of the Axis air forces than the Germans alone.

I flubbed that response I meant to ask if the air war would be worse the Axus or the *Allies*.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Italians are able to perform better guarding against German takeovers in Italian occupied territory in September 1943 but are not made ridiculously and uncharacteristically adept and lucky, how many Western Allied divisions would it have taken to secure the whole Southern European Italian perimeter?

Were that many divisions, and the shipping needed to support them, available in the ETO in September 1943?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What would this Allied invasion of Yugoslavia look like?

If there were an Allied invasion of the Balkans, especially through Yugoslavia, I truly wonder if it would do anything at all to limit the spread of Communist governments. By this point (sept 1943) the British favored the Partisans over the Chetniks. They'd probably have to work closely with the Partisans. This could lead to an early collapse of the German position in neighboring countries like Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and possibly the Soviets marching through much less of the territory.

But, with the limits of western manpower committed and the significance of Partisan manpower plus local communist parties, especially in Greece, Albania and Bulgaria, I would imagine there's a decent chance those countries end up with Tito-supported Communist governments. Now if the Tito-Stalin split occurs just like OTL or faster, that can mean a much smaller Warsaw Pact as Balkan Communists go "non-aligned" instead. Of course without Soviets breathing down his neck Tito may have less of a problem with them, and he may regard British sponsored resistance to his territorial claims on Trieste and Macedonia as a bigger problem, leading to a series of Balkan Communist states, not tightly integrated with the Soviets, but sharing a common anti-western orientation.
 
I...

Were that many divisions, and the shipping needed to support them, available in the ETO in September 1943?

On the US side there were eight divisions: 1st Arm, 2d Arm, 1st Inf, 3d Inf, 9th Inf, 34th Inf, 45th Inf, 82 Abn. Two Corps HQ the I Armored, and the II were sent. The I Armored was dissolved during 1943. Two Army HQ were stood up; the 5th and 7th. Both were never at full strength at the same time. While the 7th operated in Sicily the 5th served as a planning and preparations group for follow on operations in Italy. After the 5th Army became operational the 7th became a planning cell, preparing for Op ANVIL among other things. A third corps HQ was stood up in the autumn of 1943.

The Brits had two Army HQ at the start of 1943 1st & 8th. There was probably another in the Levant or Egypt responsible for the garrison units there. If I recall correctly there were five corps HQ split between 1st & 8th Armies. My list of Brit divisions in incomplete. 4thInf. 5th Inf, 46th Inf, 56th Inf, 78th Inf, 1st Arm, 6th Arm, 7th Arm, 10th Arm in Palestine, 1st Airborne, 1st Canadian Inf, 4th Indian, 2d New Zealand... and probably something I'd missed in Egypt or Palestine.

France had manpower mobilized for a dozen odd divisions in the Med, tho their equipment was falling apart and was obsolescent. In 1943 they committed a 'corps' to securing Sardinia and Corsica, and at the end of the year to Italy. The Poles had a division stood up in the Med in late 1943 & another in 1944.

So thats 20+ divisions fir for combat, six or seven corps HQ, 3-4 Army HQ.

I may be wrong but recall about 6,000 operational Allied aircraft in the Med in middle 1943.

Cargo ships are the trick. OTL operations in italy were hampered from October 1943 through 1944 by the priority to the OVERLORD operation and the related BOLERO build up. Then there was the 1943 commitment by the US to send equipment for some ten French infantry and armored divisions by US TO/TE. After that the liberated population of Italy proved dependent on Allied cargo ships to prevent starvation. After Op AVALANCHE in September the Amphi fleet began drawing down to prepare for Op NEPTUNE in the UK.
 
Last edited:
The Brits had two Army HQ at the start of 1943 1st & 8th. There was probably another in the Levant or Egypt responsible for the garrison units there. If I recall correctly there were five corps HQ split between 1st & 8th Armies. My list of Brit divisions in incomplete. 4thInf. 5th Inf, 46th Inf, 56th Inf, 78th Inf, 1st Arm, 6th Arm, 7th Arm, 10th Arm in Palestine, 1st Airborne, 1st Canadian Inf, 4th Indian, 2d New Zealand... and probably something I'd missed in Egypt or Palestine.

Obvious additions are Polish II Corps with 3rd and 5th Divisions, 50th and 51st Infantry who had not yet returned for Normandy, and Indian Divisions in 10th Army, particularly 8th and 10th which eventually fought in Italy
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@Carl Schwamberger

If the Western Allies stop new Mediterranean landings after Sicily (so September) or after Africa (so July), and launch operations against Norway at that time, what territory will they have pocketed by June 1944 and will Swedish neutrality have been preserved? Will the WAllies have reached the shores of the Baltic? Will the civilian pops of Norway or Norway and Sweden need as much food aid as the southern Europeans? There certainly will be large numbers untermenschen for the Nazis to round up if the war extends into Sweden (there was the small Swedish Jewish population and the small Danish Jewish community which had taken refuge in Sweden). Naturally of course this has some negative implications for the Scandinavians: The Norwegians have combat related civilian casualties even as they are liberated and the Swedes could get sucked into a war they do not want.
 
Ah yes, the Scandinavian campaign. A understudied alternative. Possibly because the terrain is so intimidating. Wish I had time to get the maps out and give it a serious look.

...
and will Swedish neutrality have been preserved? Will the WAllies have reached the shores of the Baltic? ...

Swedens nuetrality will be compromised when the Allies secure the Narvik railway connection to Sweden. Once that is operating again the Swedes can sell iron ore to its former customer at a higher price the Germans can pay, and receive cheap US arms. Germany can't afford to let that situation fester.
 
You need an earlier surrender, not a later one - by the time Cassibile happens, Hitler has been expecting it for a while and has acted accordingly. Prevent Achse from being prepared and you have a start.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
You need an earlier surrender, not a later one - by the time Cassibile happens, Hitler has been expecting it for a while and has acted accordingly. Prevent Achse from being prepared and you have a start.

Interesting - when do you propose? Does it end up being mainly the Italians and not the Western Allies who keep the Germans out of their zones?
 
Top