Better performance by the Allies in WWII?

thevaliant

A lot of threads about World War II deal with how the Germans could do better in World War II. A lot of other threads deal with how, had the Allies reacted differently over certain areas (Czechoslovakia/Poland) could lead to only a limited war, and therefore better German gains later on.

I'd like to try something (I hope) new.

Starting from 12th December 1941, how much better could the Allies do (Both the West and the Soviet Union) to bring the war militarily to a close sooner, leading to an Allied victory?

It'd be better if we could keep to a historic path to victory (Africa, Italy, France for the Western Allies, whilst just the painful slog to Berlin for the Soviets), though I wouldn't mind seeing some alternative fights (Italy ignore perhaps - or a Balkan invasion instead for the Allies - perhaps even the Soviets launching a few mapcap operations against Bulgaria or Romania?).

I don't like to suggest something without a few ideas so:
1. I can't see the British doing better in Africa in 1942, though a less cautious commander might see El Alamein wrapped up sooner. With good fortune, perhaps the Afrika Korp can be pocketed, and removed from play.
2. The Soviets not launching an offensive against Kharkov in 1942 before Case Blue would help them keep more forces alive for a later offensive themselves.
3. After North Africa is wrapped up, if it can be done sooner, could the Allies attempt a crack at France in 1943 (I'm not sure.... logistically it could be tough though once ashore I think they will hold)? Is a Balkan strategy better? Is there any gain in striking at Norway (though it was well garrisoned)?
4. Can the Soviets play Stalingrad any better than what they did historically (probably not)?
5. Can Italy (if gone for) be played better by the Allies. Seems to me they can as well. Additionally, if Italy can be better prepared for surrender, they might even join the Allies and keep Rome if the American's go for it and land further north?

I'm aware complications arise from logistics, which, personally, are really responsible for victory or defeat in wars, and I'll admit trying to AH 'Alt-logistics' is very difficult.

Any thoughts or takers?
 

Hörnla

Stephen said:
No Phony War attack through France while most of the wheremarch is in Poland.
Click to expand...

Poor spelling, but excellent idea. First things first, that should do Germany in, but it would require a wholly different organization and mindset on behalf of the Allies (of the French in that case) - something that requires an early POD.
 

BlairWitch749

Banned
My joint tl with OKH_1946 offers a British wank "the desert god" shows how a truly skilled and aggressive British commander could have wrapped up the med much faster than otl
 

TofuTanker

An invasion of southern France would be possible once Corsica was liberated, that is, late 1943. The Balkans would be an option, and if it succeeded it would be better because (a) you cut Hitler off from oil and (b) the Soviets don't force Albania, Romania, etc. to become communist states after the war, but it would be harder and a bigger stretch for the Allies logistically. There would be no reason to take Norway.

The Sherman tanks could have been given internal fireproofing before the invasion of France, making repair of knocked-out tanks easier, and saving the lives of crewmen.

The USSR could have allowed the Americans to base B-29s in Siberia so that the firebombing of Japan could have happened earlier and hopefully without the costly invasions of Saipan, Tinian, etc.

The British 2pdr and 6pdr tank guns could have been issued high-explosive ammunition (it would have been a big help in North Africa when British tanks were repeatedly confronted with German 88mm guns).

The Allies could have foreseen the problem of the bocage hedgerows in France and equipped tanks with hedge cutters beforehand.

The Soviets could have used APCR or APDS ammunition for better penetration against German heavy tanks(assuming they could get tungsten).
 

Gosing

For the Pacific:

1) Due to bravery, luck, and the Japanese not having much luck, the Phillipenes hold out much longer. The North eventually falls, but the South holds out as a guerilla movement.

2) The IJN is chastened months earlier, preferably in the DEI.

3) Said colony's defenders get their act together, Singapore is held, and Java and Sumatra remain largely Dutch.

4) The allies descend on the Pacific in force. After a bit of island-hopping, they invade Japan.

5) Downfall is bloody, but an eventual victory.

I ake no responsibility for this not matching the ground realities in the Pacific.
 

TofuTanker

Downfall would be a disaster. The Japanese had three million soldiers still in Japan in 1945, and their plan was to have them disguised as civilians, without uniforms, so that the Americans would be unable to tell who was a soldier and who wasn't. Even worse, the Japanese had all of their civilians conscripted to become one 35-million-person army. Schools were converted to military bases where children learned to charge into tanks with explosive backpacks to blow them up. The top Japanese military leadership's plan in the event of an American invasion was to retreat to the mountains of Honshu and fight a guerrilla war indefinitely. General MacArthur said that a successful invasion of Japan could take ten years or more.

Atomic bomb + Soviet invasion of Manchuria was definitely the way to go.
 
perfectgeneral

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
On this day Hilter declared that the Jews were no longer needed (hostages). If it could be done, I would look to push up from Northern Greece into Bulgaria, Romania and Poland asap. To stop the genocide, deny the axis Romanian oil, support the Russians (hard pressed in Moscow ) and aim to restore Poland and the minor Baltic states. But could they do that? What POD would make that possible?
 

The Vet

Is there any way the western allies could have liberated eastern europe before the Red army saving it from 44 years of Stalinism?
 

hammo1j

Donor
I think probably the best the Allies could do would be September 1944.
I think May 1945 was a great achievement though. I would be interested what others think is the earliest possible.

D-Day could not have been done sooner, but the following would have worked.

1. No unconditional surrender demand or Morgenthau plan from Western Allies.
2. More effort devoted to bombing Oil particularly by Bomber Command.
3. Earlier long range escorts.
4. No assault on the Phillipines. Nimitz in charge in the Pacific.
 

Commissar

Banned
Adoption of the 90mm gun Sherman by 1944 for America. General McNair actually thought of doing this in 1943 but was talked out of it.

Lets say he puts his foot down and orders it done.

We will never hear of the oft talked about five Shermans to kill one Panther myth ever.
 

Polish Eagle

No Market Garden. Just a straight shot through either Holland before the Panzers are relocated to Arnhem (when the British got into Belgium, the Dutch resistance expected them to take Holland within days anyway), or right over the Sigfried Line by Patton.
 

aktarian

More sensible soviet winter offensive. Keep it small, keep it limited, don't get to excited.

Soviet Voronezh offensive has been mentioned. If Soviets feel they have to do something again keep it small, keep it limited.

Soviets realize Kotluban offensives are not achieving anything so stop wasting men and machines there. The sooner Soviets realize they have to counter-attack further west the better (but keep something happening there to keep Germans on their toes)

While post-Stalingrad offensive is understandable I keep it small. though with expectations high after such victory keeping cool heads would be hard. Possible if somebody points out that twice such ambitious offensives ended in disaster.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Commissar said:
Adoption of the 90mm gun Sherman by 1944 for America. General McNair actually thought of doing this in 1943 but was talked out of it.

Lets say he puts his foot down and orders it done.

We will never hear of the oft talked about five Shermans to kill one Panther myth ever.
Click to expand...
No. The 17pdr or QF 77mm AT gun would have been better (seriously, they've got better penetration than the 90mm gun) especially since the work on the Sherman was already done in the form of the Sherman Firefly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top