Alternative to Tikhvin Operation, Leningrad falls

[Catspoke]

Losing Murmansk early in 1942 and all that LL that year will be very though for the Soviets, as it was over 25% of their intake that year and Persia and Vladivostok couldn't take more yet; infrastructure upgrades that made them more important in 1943 haven't happened yet. Plus then Air Fleet 5 can be used in the Mediterranean, which means Malta definitely falls in August 1942 if not earlier.

In terms of German paratroops, perhaps they can lead an assault across Kerch by air? Or perhaps they just end up replacing Ramcke's brigade with a full division. Or they even end up in the Balkans to fight Tito with extra German mountain troops to clear that out before the Caucasus invasion begins. Without the Northern Front active other than say 2 mountain divisions used to defend Norway from potential Allied invasion the German mountain divisions will all be used in the Caucasus once the Tito situation is wrapped up; they nearly did in Spring/Summer 1942, so with the mountain troops used in the North, plus paras for a surprise drop behind the partisans Tito could end up dead/captured and shut down resistance before divisions then are used in the Caucasus come August. The SS Mountain divisions were not particularly good from what I gather when not fighting partisans, so maybe they are just left doing security duty against Soviet partisan resistance in the Caucasus Mountains (which apparently was a major problem IOTL, they ended up killing all the German petroleum engineers in their sleep one night at Maykop).

The Malta falling part makes sense, some decent torpedo bombers used in Norway and such would make supplying Malta difficult if they can be redeployed. But how quick does Murmansk fall or the rail line get cut, June 42 (waiting for decent weather) maybe?? Even if cut in June 42, over the summer Soviet supplies could be brought from Archangel or the Murmansk convoy's supplies just used locally there. Seems that could take a while to wrap up.

The Maikop/Tupase area had awful deployments 1942 OTL (motorized divisions used where a good light infantry or mountain would be better, while infantry is marching across the steppe etc.) One way or another (like your Tito example which is interesting) some extra Mountain infantry in the Caucasus could have a magnifier effect if you free up a motorized division or two to go to Grozny. I think the 3 Italian mountain divisions would have been particularly useful somewhere in the Caucasus and if their loss in little Saturn is avoided Mussolini's political position is stronger in 1943 (Leningrad's fall has to be a political positive itself for a fascist dictator).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Malta falling part makes sense, some decent torpedo bombers used in Norway and such would make supplying Malta difficult if they can be redeployed. But how quick does Murmansk fall or the rail line get cut, June 42 (waiting for decent weather) maybe?? Even if cut in June 42, over the summer Soviet supplies could be brought from Archangel or the Murmansk convoy's supplies just used locally there. Seems that could take a while to wrap up.

The Maikop/Tupase area had awful deployments 1942 OTL (motorized divisions used where a good light infantry or mountain would be better, while infantry is marching across the steppe etc.) One way or another (like your Tito example which is interesting) some extra Mountain infantry in the Caucasus could have a magnifier effect if you free up a motorized division or two to go to Grozny. I think the 3 Italian mountain divisions would have been particularly useful somewhere in the Caucasus and if their loss in little Saturn is avoided Mussolini's political position is stronger in 1943 (Leningrad's fall has to be a political positive itself for a fascist dictator).

Probably no earlier than June, because they have to not only wait out winter, but also the thaw. Then they need time to cut the RR and move up to Murmansk with good supply via the captured rail line. Of course destroying that convoy headed to Murmansk in summer right before they attack the city would be a major help. Once Karelia is captured then getting anything into Archengelesk is impossible due to Uboats then being able to be stationed in Murmansk and mine/interdict the constricted route to Archengelesk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_17
Perhaps in anticipation of the German offensive the Allies redirect LL out of the area entirely once summer hits due to the German offensive and not wanting LL to be captured? Certainly once the RR is cut then putting a bunch of supplies/weapons into Murmansk is probably going to result in a bunch getting captured. Archangel is probably a safe bet once the ice thaws, but that only is good so long as the Axis has yet to take Murmansk or have bases on the White Sea, which they will once Karelia falls. I'd say the RR could get cut as early as late May.

Part of the issue of using fuel intensive units to drive deep into Chechnya is the supply issues. You'd have to take Tuaspe and Novorossysk intact, which they weren't IOTL and then convert the rail or capture a lot of rolling stock. Major supply issues on that front. Yes the Italian mountain infantry would have been more useful in the Caucasus, but the Italians only operated as a cohesive unit per whatever expeditionary force agreement they had.

The situation around Rzhev would be pretty rough ITTL for the Soviets given the excess German divisions once Murmansk falls. Demyansk would probably get it's supply lines secured pretty early and then Rzhev/Demyansk used as a nut cracker to pincer off Kalinin Front, which would be a very severe loss to the Soviets. Losing Leningrad/Karelia/Murmansk, Crimea, perhaps Kalinin Front, losing 3 armies to Operation Whirlwind, plus Case Blue and the potential loss of Stalingrad ITTL might not be fatal to Stalin's career or the USSR's survival, but it would severely hurt them and change the course of the war, especially with a failed Operation Mars and potentially failed Operation Uranus. Operation Little Saturn might not even happen and the Axis stays in the Caucasus in 1943. That might be fatal to the USSR then. Their economy was badly overheating and food severely lacking in the Winter of 1942-43 and Lend-Lease saved them from potential collapse, but ITTL with 25% less Lend-Lease due to the loss of Murmansk and the Germans not being rolled back while doing more damage to the Soviets than IOTL...that might be fatal.

 

[Catspoke]

Effects of this: (best case German view)
a) About a million citizens never get evacuated (lots of lost women and children), along with a fair amount of industrial plant never gets evacuated and skilled workers etc are trapped. This probably helps the Soviet food situation, but hurts production.
b) Assume the September and December 1942 Murmansk convoys and whatever individual sailings don't get through
c) Assume Demaynsk is secured earlier and pinching off the Rzhev bulge happens
d) A little extra infantry secures Stalingrad late October 1942 (Tractor factor operation finishes off city)
e) A bigger push across the Kuban with a larger Naval presence means the cement factory is secured and and Novorossysk is free for at least barge traffic.
f) German air presence around Malta reinforced, Operation Pedestal fails (Ohio sunk). Malta holds on but is worthless as a base until early 43.
f) Saturn is delayed a month due to increased Soviet issues, with the air transport fleet already committed to Tunisia, Hitler allows Stalingrad is allowed to be evacuated.
g) Soviets are able to push the Germans back over the Winter due to the extended front, however with extra German and less Soviet reserves the satellite armies suffer less.
h) The Germans for better or worse attempt to hold a bigger bridgehead in the Kuban, still holding Maikop and the intact wells at Krymska. (Hitler has to interfere negatively somehow)
i) The Germans with extra air transport earlier and weaker Malta build up a larger supply reserve in Tunisia.
j) Germans are able to beat off attack on Mareth line late March 43, Tunisia lasts 6 weeks longer, not falling until late June 43.
j) With German and extra Allied extra strength, less Soviet strength, less Lend Lease, later Italian defection, no serious Soviet attack occurs in 1943,
k) However the German are committed to this large bridgehead in the Kuban don't have the reserves or obvious target (Germans hold Kursk bulge still) to attack themselves.
i) No Barents sea battle or scrap the fleet order, however there is nothing obvious for the German surface fleet to do. Scharnhorst remains in the Baltic.

I forsee a much nastier Battle of France in 1944 with less German issues with strategic supplies (Oil, Manganese, Nickel, Chrome) until later due to the better situation on the eastern front.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Well that is certainly the absolute best case scenario short of a Calber, Stalin executes everyone for their failure, result. The Kalinin Front being wiped out due to the Toropets salient getting pinched off would weaken the Germans significantly, but be devastating for the Soviets and probably prevent Operation Saturn and turn Mars into a desperate attempt to redress the balance around Moscow. Politically Stalin would be in a very bad position after all that and probably extremely paranoid and desperate. In fact with these level of losses and loss of LL the Soviets might well not be in a position to push the Germans back in the winter of 1942-43 and the Wallies might have to consider Operation Roundhammer for Spring 1943 to take pressure off of Stalin instead of Torch. Especially if Malta is lost the Mediterranean might be considered a detour that cannot be afford in the midst of Soviet defeats.

Actually all things considered given the loss of Leningrad, Murmansk, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, the failure of 2nd Kharkov, and the loss of the Toropets salient/part or most of Kalinin Front, Stalin might go nuts and start a purge. Likely the Churchill visit in August 1942 will not go well and Stalin will certainly demand an immediate invasion of France. I wonder if all these 1942 defeats might well provoke and unraveling of Stalin, who already was quite the drunk and heavily stressed by defeated IOTL, and might give him a heart attack or something, or he goes off the rails and executes people too important to spare.

A passive USSR in 1943 coupled with a Wallied invasion of France in late Spring/early Summer 1943 instead of Sicily would be a very bloody affair, especially if Rommel's force is either evacuated intact or still contesting Libya with no worries about Malta and his supply lines, while Operation Uranus and Saturn don't happen as per OTL and destroy large Axis forces. Even the bloodletting of Luftwaffe in the Mediterranean and over Stalingrad not happening will be a major difference that will impact the Western Front in 1943 if there is an invasion. Plus of course 10th Panzer and the HG Panzer division not being in Tunisia and instead fighting in France, same with Ramcke's troops not being destroyed in Africa, while all the Italian Front troops of OTL are in France to meet the invasion in 1943. It would be interesting.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

As far as a TL of events would go, this is what I see happening:
Leningrad surrenders in late January 1942, Soviet offensives to rescue it are hasty and fail, which then gives the Germans a chance to cut them off and wipe them out even better than IOTL due to holding the entire west bank of the Volkhov. As per OTL most of AG-North's last Panzer Corps, the XXXIX, which conducted the operation to clear out the west bank of the Volkhov in October along with the infantry I Corps is peeled off to help 16th army, but due to being far less damaged than IOTL without having to take and hold Tikhvin they are able to keep Demyansk's supply lines open (IOTL only 1 badly worn down motorized division was used, here it wouldn't be as worn down and the rest of the 4 division corps could be used to help 16th army due to not being needed to hold the Volkhov line, that's an foot infantry job) as well as help Kholm. Then they could withdraw their Panzer divisions to recoup in Estonia as per OTL. IOTL 8th Panzer was used to relieve Kholm, but without being as damaged at Tikhvin or being locked down in the North that could happen sooner with greater strength, avoiding the heavy losses that happened during that pocket battle.

During the Spring the mobile divisions of XXXIX Panzer Corps would recoup once Leningrad surrenders and frees up infantry to hold the lines they did historically and then probably get used to help hold Rzhev during the Summer battles and in the counteroffensives to firm up the lines around the salient. 3rd and 5th Mountain division never appear on the front of 18th army and instead go straight to Finland and participate in that big offensive to capture Karelia and Murmansk; that effort takes most of May and June and probably by July that wraps up once the July convoy to Murmansk is shattered by the Germans as per OTL. Freed up from that the mountain divisions get a rest and then probably get deployed to the Caucasus in September if they are ready. The SS Mountain division gets deployed to the Balkans with 7th SS division and probably goes on to commit similar atrocities there. 7th Flieger division probably does an air assault in the Kuban once it isn't needed around Leningrad. The veterans of Sevastopol probably are used for operations around Rzhev, first Operation Whirlwind in August and then in an effort with 9th army to cut off the Toropets salient's rail line with help out of Demyansk. Given that Demyansk never becomes a pocket ITTL and Kholm either never does too or is much more quickly saved, there is major savings of German troops and they are able to use their positions to lock down Soviet reserves so that 11th army can cut the rail line supplying the Soviets running through the Valdai Hills. XXXIX Panzer Corps can be spared ITTL to help in the Summer battles of Rzhev, which means 11th army and 9th army can focus on cutting off Kalinin Front, which probably culiminates some time around September.

In the meantime in the South extra forces freed up as a result of operations in the North (or never became casualties ITTL) plus greater Soviet weakness means Stalingrad falls early, perhaps in September even. In August due to freed up German aircraft from the north in July Operation Pedestal fails and then in September Malta surrenders due to lack of supplies. No impact on the fighting in Egypt, but it does free up Luftwaffe aircraft for more offensive missions in the Eastern Mediterranean and reduces supply use from constantly interdicting Malta. Novorossyisk falls completely, including Soviet positions overlooking the port, in September-October, but the port is wrecked. With more mountain troops the Germans are eventually able to take Tuapse too, but similarly wrecked due to the fighting and sabotage. Maykop is also sabotaged as per OTL. Grozny is bombed as per OTL and Abwehr missions similarly fail as per OTL. Stalin is desperate and demands a 2nd Front in France or will ask for a separate peace when Churchill visits in August, Malta falling also weakens Churchill's political position.

Allies settle on Operation Roundhammer in May 1943 instead of Operation Torch. All the landing craft and shipping is freed up due to the Murmansk LL route being shut off. Stalin is panicked by the Toropets salient being lost and most of Kalinin Front being chopped up in the pocket. That frees up a lot of German troops, so Rzhev is secured and Moscow now threatened more than any time since October 1941. The situation along the Volga is serious, but the Germans aren't advancing any more and the defeats around Moscow make Stalin focus on that area more than rolling the Germans back from Ukraine and the Caucasus. The Soviets focus their weakened offensive abilities on pushing the Germans back from the Volga and Voronezh in the Winter of 1942-43, but find that German reserves are a lot stronger than IOTL and their efforts are stymied, though they do damage the Romanian, Italian, and Hungarian armies. Stalin decides them to sit back and wait for the Wallies and 2nd Front.

In Africa Rommel is defeated and pushed back from Egypt to Benghazi, but ground troop reinforcements and now a bunch of extra Luftwaffe support due to Malta being taken mean Rommel rallies and is able to rally and cut up British pursuit forces and stabilize the line at Gazala. This is a temporary reprieve though as Monty builds up for another Operation Supercharge to break Rommel's line. This will take a lot longer due to the need to husband Allied forces for the Normandy invasion and extended British supply lines from Egypt. The next major push is scheduled for April 1943 to distract from the situation in France right before the invasion. German troops are stretched on all fronts, so when the Brits do attack they push Rommel right back to El Agheila after a heavy fight. Again a major pause in the fighting.

In France then in May 1943 the Allies invade, but the Germans have built up substantial reserves to counter it do to the Eastern Front bogging down for the time being .
I'll stop right there, because so much would be different it's tough to say what would happen at that point.

 

[Catspoke]

In fact with these level of losses and loss of LL the Soviets might well not be in a position to push the Germans back in the winter of 1942-43 and the Wallies might have to consider Operation Roundhammer for Spring 1943 to take pressure off of Stalin instead of Torch. Especially if Malta is lost the Mediterranean might be considered a detour that cannot be afford in the midst of Soviet defeats.

I suppose the fall of Leningrad along with other German success (Malta) could have Vichy North African leaders have more cold feet about an Allied landing in the planning stage which might reinforce a decision to avoid the Mediterranean.

Taking the July 43 Sicily invasion force and applying it to France would still be a big invasion, likely to get ashore, but would be a god awful attritional mess increasing American casualties in WW2 dramatically however with more of Europe in non Soviet control at the end, reducing the cold war and the Soviets getting western aid for a long time (lots of dead Leningraders iand a ruined city would get sympathy). The Allies would be pissed at Germany in this TL and the Soviets even more pissed if that is possible, not good for Germany, probably not good for France either post war, if Vichy is a political force longer, same worse result with Italy, might be much better for Poland if Home army in place in Warsaw at end of war before Soviets arrive.

USA would certainly have declared war on Finland and the western allies would care little what happens there, especially if Poland is free (which might interesting for Britain that its reason for getting in the war was actually fulfilled. Poland would get much Allied aid).

Hungary/Romania might get occupation zones. Monarchy could get restored in Yugoslavia. Bulgaria might be better off.

A messy France campaign might delay the Pacific if landing craft is sucked up in France due to lack of Mulberries/destroyed ports and the continued need to land stuff in small boats. More of France might be wrecked due to serious fighting there.

If France prestige hurt post war, her colonial situation might be a mess. USA might be less sympathetic to French Indochina post war.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I suppose the fall of Leningrad along with other German success (Malta) could have Vichy North African leaders have more cold feet about an Allied landing in the planning stage which might reinforce a decision to avoid the Mediterranean.

The Allies would probably be worried about not having Malta to interdict German supply lines, but their biggest motivator would probably be Stalin and panic about him making a separate peace given the losses ITTL 1942.

Taking the July 43 Sicily invasion force and applying it to France would still be a big invasion, likely to get ashore, but would be a god awful attritional mess increasing American casualties in WW2 dramatically however with more of Europe in non Soviet control at the end, reducing the cold war and the Soviets getting western aid for a long time (lots of dead Leningraders iand a ruined city would get sympathy). The Allies would be pissed at Germany in this TL and the Soviets even more pissed if that is possible, not good for Germany, probably not good for France either post war, if Vichy is a political force longer, same worse result with Italy, might be much better for Poland if Home army in place in Warsaw at end of war before Soviets arrive.

Well you'd have to do more than just superimpose Sicily's invasion force on to France, you also need to consider without a North Africa invasion Vichy is still around, so German defenses in France aren't spread out in occupation of the South, plus OTL Tunisian reinforcements to Rommel (5th Panzer army), plus OTL Sicily defenders, plus OTL 1943 France defenders, plus any TTL additions due to a better Eastern Front situation oppose the Allied landings. There aren't the OTL Luftwaffe losses at Stalingrad, Tunisia, Kholm, or Demyanks ITTL too, plus the big strategic bomber battles of 1943 have yet to happen and what has happened is probably an RAF and USAAF focus on France's transport network. So while probably being able to get to shore due to naval fire support and less Atlantic Wall preparations, they will be mitigated by worse supply due to no Mulberries or PLUTO and lack of control of the air as the Luftwaffe is very much a going concern, plus ground forces are a lot tougher without the OTL losses/diversions of German troops, plus less pressure in the East. Without a doubt it would be a bloodier for everyone ITTL.

USA would certainly have declared war on Finland and the western allies would care little what happens there, especially if Poland is free (which might interesting for Britain that its reason for getting in the war was actually fulfilled. Poland would get much Allied aid).

Hungary/Romania might get occupation zones. Monarchy could get restored in Yugoslavia. Bulgaria might be better off.

A messy France campaign might delay the Pacific if landing craft is sucked up in France due to lack of Mulberries/destroyed ports and the continued need to land stuff in small boats. More of France might be wrecked due to serious fighting there.

If France prestige hurt post war, her colonial situation might be a mess. USA might be less sympathetic to French Indochina post war.

If the entire northern sector is locked down functionally it means nothing to Finland as they are pretty much untouchable unless the Soviets stage a massive recovery; even then without the Kareliean/Murmansk fronts the Finns will be far more able to defend along the Leningrad axis than they were IOTL. The Soviet may well just not want to deal with the added hassle of fighting the Finns by 1945 if they are doing worse and bleeding far more than IOTL. Finland might actually get away with their conquests for some time. Really though it is tough to say what the long term political implications are here, especially if the Soviets start Summer 1943 with the front line along the Volga/Don and the Kalinin Front being eliminated, while LL is reduced by 25%. They would be in a food crisis and Stalin might be on a purge rampage; depending on what happens in France in 1943 he might even seriously consider an armistice/peace with the Germans just to save his country if there is a fear of collapse. IOTL the Soviets had liberated part of Ukraine and the Kuban by Spring 1943, which gave them back vital farmland that they replanted with US Lend-Lease seeds and machinery. ITTL if they hadn't done that, plus lost Murmansk/Archangelsk LL routes they'd be in famine by Summer 1943 and IOTL even with their successes in battle they had a tight food situation. The Soviet public might well be mutinous by Summer 1943 without the OTL battlefield successes, worse defeats, and a much worse food situation. Worst case scenario if the Soviets cannot liberate Kuban and East Ukraine by Fall 1943 they might well get into regime collapse.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Murmansk comes first, but after that I'd imagine the Spaniards would be put on the Volkov defensive line as per OTL, though something interesting for the parachute troops might come up beyond partisan hunting or holding a defensive line. The other question is what does Stalin do about the encirclement starting in mid-October?

Honestly, Rhzev and 2nd Kharkov are probably butterflied. Russian losses are roughly similar, as I imagine their encirclement is more difficult but they are attacking into much better defensive ground for the Axis. Certainly, the Russians cannot afford to leave Moscow undefends, so the loser is the southern sector. The Germans may barely run into resistance in Case Blue until they reach the Caucasus region.

 

[pattersonautobody]

In France then in May 1943 the Allies invade, but the Germans have built up substantial reserves to counter it do to the Eastern Front bogging down for the time being .
I'll stop right there, because so much would be different it's tough to say what would happen at that point.

The invasion fails. Luftwaffe can still hold its own, bridges stay up, no Atlantic Wall, German reserves rush in (particularly armored forces originally being husbanded for the "big" summer offensive in the East scheduled for June or July) and crush the Wallies.

Ironically, an invasion of France should wait until Germany has already committed to something in the East--or it fails.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Honestly, Rhzev and 2nd Kharkov are probably butterflied. Russian losses are roughly similar, as I imagine their encirclement is more difficult but they are attacking into much better defensive ground for the Axis. Certainly, the Russians cannot afford to leave Moscow undefends, so the loser is the southern sector. The Germans may barely run into resistance in Case Blue until they reach the Caucasus region.

The Toropets-Kholm offensive still probably happens, but might be weaker if Stalin freaks about Leningrad and puts more resources into that. Which would prevent Rzhev from turning into what it did IOTL. 2nd Kharkov might be impossible to butterfly just from this due to the success of the Iszum offensive in Winter 1941-42. Of course if Stalin holds back there, then the Germans do Operation Fridericus, which they were assembling for when the Soviets attacked first, which would have lopped off the Iszum salient, but at lower cost to the Soviets. Perhaps then they stand and fight against Case Blue, rather than running away, which turns the Soviets into another pocket battle victim.

But the big question for Winter 1941-42 is how Stalin reacts to Leningrad being cut off in October. Likely he orders immediate counterattacks like during the Tikhvin offensive, but they fail miserable against the Volkhov line due to the Germans have pretty strong positions. Which then means during the Winter counteroffensive whether he tries to destroy AG-Center as per OTL or weights things more north. Perhaps then 3rd and even 4th Shock armies reinforce the Volkhov Front to break 18th army and open a route to Leningrad. That could start as early as mid-December and happen in stages due to how long it took to assemble Soviet forces IOTL. Likely that fails miserably and prevents the Toropets-Kholm offensive and pocket, but instead creates a really nasty situation on the Volkhov that due to Stalin's desperation to breakthrough and save Leningrad turns into a massive disaster by forcing a Soviet offensive before forces are ready. They may well advance into a large pocket like 2nd Shock army did, but now it's even bigger. That still shouldn't impact the situation in Ukraine in terms of a Soviet counteroffensive, because 3rd and 4th Shock army just shift their efforts further north rather than around the Valdai Hills. That leaves 16th army in a much better positions to resist any Soviet offensive action in the area and prevents Demyansk and Kholm from happening, plus leaves the Rzhev area MUCH better off, though probably with some Soviet threat from the West, just not a huge salient as per OTL. So Rzhev might still turn into a meat grind ITTL, just less bad for the Germans and with another rail line from Velyki Luki to the West being open.

The invasion fails. Luftwaffe can still hold its own, bridges stay up, no Atlantic Wall, German reserves rush in (particularly armored forces originally being husbanded for the "big" summer offensive in the East scheduled for June or July) and crush the Wallies.

Ironically, an invasion of France should wait until Germany has already committed to something in the East--or it fails.

I don't know if the invasion can truly fail given the impact of naval gunnery support, but without something like the Transport Plan succeeding it is possible that the invasion bridgehead is contained and potentially thrown back into the sea, albeit with massive German losses due to naval fire support and Allied air force numbers. The Luftwaffe may end up being attritted apart trying to defeat the Allied invasion effort. Though if the Wallies fail in France, Stalin might legitimately offer Hitler a reasonable armistice.

 

[pattersonautobody]

I don't know if the invasion can truly fail given the impact of naval gunnery support, but without something like the Transport Plan succeeding it is possible that the invasion bridgehead is contained and potentially thrown back into the sea, albeit with massive German losses due to naval fire support and Allied air force numbers. The Luftwaffe may end up being attritted apart trying to defeat the Allied invasion effort. Though if the Wallies fail in France, Stalin might legitimately offer Hitler a reasonable armistice.

Naval presence is not enough to protect a ground force, though I agree that's a heck of a lot of artillery at sea. I just don't see how an Allied force can hold out without the Battle of Atlantic won, a Luftwaffe that can keep bridges open, and Panzers and quality German forces on the way.

Perhaps the Allied bridgehead just becomes a giant meatgrinder for everyone. They won't be able to break far into France...but I guess, the Allies can win an attritional war and don't care.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Naval presence is not enough to protect a ground force, though I agree that's a heck of a lot of artillery at sea. I just don't see how an Allied force can hold out without the Battle of Atlantic won, a Luftwaffe that can keep bridges open, and Panzers and quality German forces on the way.

Perhaps the Allied bridgehead just becomes a giant meatgrinder for everyone. They won't be able to break far into France...but I guess, the Allies can win an attritional war and don't care.

Sure, but the huge fleet and the fire support it was able to provide in Normandy in 1944 and in Sicily/Italy in 1943 was so overwhelming it prevented the invasion from being tossed back into the sea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy#German_counterattacks
Certainly air power was another major factor, as was major deception operations. Air power in 1943 won't be what it was in 1944, nor would the Luftwaffe be broken already, but the Allies have a strong numerical advantage even in 1943 near the beaches.
The Battle of the Atlantic was won by May 1943, which is the month of this invasion. It was pretty much already over by early 1943, but the Germans refused to quit until May, which was so undeniably bad that Uboat warfare had become a suicide mission.
If the fighting bogs down into an attritional battle in Normandy...the Germans are going to lose that one pretty hard. The Allies will bleed a lot more than IOTL to win it, but then the Germans will break if they cannot push the invasion back into the sea. Then a recovered USSR can take the offensive in 1944 and breakthrough for sure at low cost and probably be able to wipe out multiple German army groups if they are still as deep as the Volga/Don.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Would it be fair to say an Overlord 43 is a lot more like Anzio, than Sicily, the difference being the Germans have even more men, aircraft, and better logistics? Anzio was close OTL. It seems like this may be a bridge too far.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Would it be fair to say an Overlord 43 is a lot more like Anzio, than Sicily, the difference being the Germans have even more men, aircraft, and better logistics? Anzio was close OTL. It seems like this may be a bridge too far.

There are too many differences compared to the Anzio situation...such as Britain being close and offering around the clock air support; Anzio didn't have a land air base of the size of Southern England to provide thousands of fighters and bombers in support. It probably turns into a meat grinder that the Allies win, the question is do they have the will to suffer those sorts of losses? If the alternative is to have Stalin make peace if they abandon the bridgehead then they keep going regardless of losses until they can land somewhere else and turn the German flank or the Germans crack.

Plus Anzio had a lot less naval support than would be available here, same with air support and amount of troops that could be landed in the first wave, plus airborne troop support. If the plan, the pincer landings of the Cotentin Peninsula and capture of Cherbourg as a supply port, success enough to get Cherbourg and get it functional, then they can win. Planning was that they would have to hold the peninsula for a months before they could even dream of breaking out.

I guess there was a variant for Brittany too:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/94729/roundhammer-1943

 

[pattersonautobody]

Why couldn't the Germans just push the Allies right back into the ocean 36 hours after the landings? Is this like a false-peak operation that we see in Calbear's TL? Even if the Germans succeed, the Allies simply go again next time the weather allows until the Luftwaffe is all shot down and German armor is all blown away by naval support?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Why couldn't the Germans just push the Allies right back into the ocean 36 hours after the landings? Is this like a false-peak operation that we see in Calbear's TL? Even if the Germans succeed, the Allies simply go again next time the weather allows until the Luftwaffe is all shot down and German armor is all blown away by naval support?

Deception operations leading to Hitler keeping reserves locked down, Allied air attacks even as the Luftwaffe tries to stop them, confusion about the invasion and it's extent, airborne operations disrupting offensive operations, naval gunfire support. Unless the Germans have sufficient numbers of divisions defending the landing/airborne drop areas and within a dozen miles of the invasion area it will be though to get through within 36 hours as the Wallies throw in ridiculous air attacks to stop the German reinforcements from getting there, plus of course keeping their deception operations going. Perhaps they even assemble such a fleet they use that as a diversion to then land in Brittany once the German attention is fixed in Normandy.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Deception operations leading to Hitler keeping reserves locked down, Allied air attacks even as the Luftwaffe tries to stop them, confusion about the invasion and it's extent, airborne operations disrupting offensive operations, naval gunfire support. Unless the Germans have sufficient numbers of divisions defending the landing/airborne drop areas and within a dozen miles of the invasion area it will be though to get through within 36 hours as the Wallies throw in ridiculous air attacks to stop the German reinforcements from getting there, plus of course keeping their deception operations going. Perhaps they even assemble such a fleet they use that as a diversion to then land in Brittany once the German attention is fixed in Normandy.

I call shenanigans on this. I don't see how a DDay 43 would somehow be packing bigger punch in 44. There was no second invasion fleet in 44, there won't be in 43. If anything, the invasion will have to be smaller.

So, there will be air cover, but less. Naval support will be roughly the same. Air borne operations, which kind of screwed up OTL, will be even less ITTL with less time to prepare. The question is realistically what is German response time? I imagine it will be better than Anzio. Without a year sitting around waiting for an invasion and no Atlantic Wall, significant German reserves won't be waiting locked in Calais, as Germany has more reserves ITTL. They can move whatever they got in france to meet the threat and if the magical second invasion ever came, they would simply move in more reserves to meet it.

WHich makes me think that if German response time is better than Anzio, they will overwhelm the Allies--even if there is more air cover, it ain't gonna be like it was in June 1944. And Germany would commit everything in the west to France. IOTL, Italy got a good deal of reserves, but the Germans could not empty France because the threat of another invasion. ITTL, the real deal is there. They will fight it with everything they got.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I call shenanigans on this. I don't see how a DDay 43 would somehow be packing bigger punch in 44. There was no second invasion fleet in 44, there won't be in 43. If anything, the invasion will have to be smaller.

I didn't say it would be as powerful as the 1944 invasion, but even the Sicily invasion was very powerful. Several other posters have made a convincing case that if push came to shove limited Pacific commitments in 1943 would free up a 2nd invasion fleet for Europe.

So, there will be air cover, but less. Naval support will be roughly the same. Air borne operations, which kind of screwed up OTL, will be even less ITTL with less time to prepare. The question is realistically what is German response time? I imagine it will be better than Anzio. Without a year sitting around waiting for an invasion and no Atlantic Wall, significant German reserves won't be waiting locked in Calais, as Germany has more reserves ITTL. They can move whatever they got in france to meet the threat and if the magical second invasion ever came, they would simply move in more reserves to meet it.

Again the problem is Anzio isn't comparable as there wasn't a Britain sized land base for air and invasion forces 50-60 miles away from the beachhead. Normandy was a very different situation than Sicily, Salerno, or Anzio. If there is no Operation Torch there is plenty of time to prepare for a Spring/Summer 1943 invasion. The level of air cover will be very high and probably would be enough to ensure the Luftwaffe couldn't touch the invasion force even if the Allies air forces suffer heavy losses as a result. Sure the Germans will have more reserves, but they will have to keep occupation forces in the East and even if making peace with Stalin they will have to keep strong forces there as a deterrent against Soviet aggression. However without Torch or an Italian campaign those forces will all be available for France in 1943, plus probably a substantial chunk of OTL Kursk forces (at least the SS Panzer Corps) thanks to 6th army not being lost and no Tunisia losses. Rommel might even still be a going concern in Libya, but even not if Malta falls then he can evacuate unmolested from Tunis without General Snail Monty causing him much trouble.

WHich makes me think that if German response time is better than Anzio, they will overwhelm the Allies--even if there is more air cover, it ain't gonna be like it was in June 1944. And Germany would commit everything in the west to France. IOTL, Italy got a good deal of reserves, but the Germans could not empty France because the threat of another invasion. ITTL, the real deal is there. They will fight it with everything they got.

The question is whether the Allies could be overwhelmed given the historical experience of Sicily and Salerno. Anzio even wasn't crushed with far less support than the Allies could offer for this invasion. Plus the Germans would lack the experience of the Italian campaign to inform their counterattack doctrine in the face of Allied naval gunnery support. They might well contain them and make breaking out too costly...though carpet bombing with B17s and a lot of escort fighters might alter that equation.

 

[thaddeus]

wonder the effects if Axis just stop on north shore of Black Sea, plan for Crimea and further after Donets region secured? plan a naval strategy (LOL) to eliminate Soviet Black Sea fleet.

the coal reserves a poor consolation prize for lack of Caucasus oil?

what forces would they free up? if any

 

[Deleted member 1487]

wonder the effects if Axis just stop on north shore of Black Sea, plan for Crimea and further after Donets region secured? plan a naval strategy (LOL) to eliminate Soviet Black Sea fleet.

the coal reserves a poor consolation prize for lack of Caucasus oil?

what forces would they free up? if any

Not an option considering the Soviets were using air bases in Crimea to bomb Romanian oil and were somewhat successful. The 1941 move into Crimea not only locked down a lot of Soviet troops to defend Sevastopol, they shut off the bombing of Romania. Plus destroyed a number of Soviet divisions IIRC. The Romanians and 11th army wouldn't really contribute much to the Donbass securing. The coal was taken IOTL anyway.