Better performance by the Allies in WWII?

The British had wanted the Torch landings to include a landing in Tunisia instead of Morocco but the Americans were afraid of a German attack through Spain and into Morocco to cut the invaders off. Had the landings occured in Tunisia it would have wrapped up the North African front 4 months early.

Italy could have gone a lot better. Had the Italians blown their railways when they switched sides German reinforcement of southern Italy could have been significantly delayed leading to an earlier Allied advance. Combine this with the above early end to action in a Africa the allies could be on the Po by D-Day. Maybe breakthroughs into Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia

Landings in the Balkans instead of southern France would have probably led to a more favorable postwar environment thatis free Bulgaria and Romania.
 
I don't think the western allies could have done very much better than they did OT.

I actually agree with the analysis completely upon reflection.

Despite what we may think, the US and British just weren't good enough and doing better against the Germans is going to be very difficult.

Now the Soviet Union could do better, but again, not by much. Ending the war sooner militarily seems quite unlikely.

A good few year ago, I read a scenario (book - can't recall) where the US and Britain BOTH went for terror bombing. Whilst Hamburg was getting it from the British in the night, the US put aside their qualms and hit it again at day, destroying the city completely.

US/Britain then proceeded to level various cities until Germany surrendered in October 1943. In hindsight, the scenario was unlikely because only those cities near to Allied fighter cover/coast were ever likely to be firebombed, but it was an interesting scenario.
 
I actually agree with the analysis completely upon reflection.

Despite what we may think, the US and British just weren't good enough and doing better against the Germans is going to be very difficult.

Now the Soviet Union could do better, but again, not by much. Ending the war sooner militarily seems quite unlikely.

A good few year ago, I read a scenario (book - can't recall) where the US and Britain BOTH went for terror bombing. Whilst Hamburg was getting it from the British in the night, the US put aside their qualms and hit it again at day, destroying the city completely.

US/Britain then proceeded to level various cities until Germany surrendered in October 1943. In hindsight, the scenario was unlikely because only those cities near to Allied fighter cover/coast were ever likely to be firebombed, but it was an interesting scenario.

Something similar was done in "The Hitler options": "Operation Armageddon, Devastation of the Cities, 1943" by Charles Messenger. Perhaps you mean this one?
 
Strategically the Allies could have decided not to follow the Bombingtactics of Airmarshall Harris, but to use the large bombers primarily against industrial and military targets, not civilian, as this was a waist of military resources, for nothing in return. (even for the Allies, who lost quite a large number of aircrews in this sort of pointless missions.)

At sea, the Allies did quite well in foccussing on the ASW, but the main problem here was the US reluctance to allocate enough resources in this early on, due to Admiral King's anti British Posture. Replacing him by a more cooperative C&C would make much difference, keeping the Atlantic as primary theater of war, and the Pacific only secondary. (King decided otherwise.)
Also helpfull would have been the USA starting earlier with the scratch buildingprogramm of ASW vessels to more usefull British design, while junking the not needed heavy armored battleships. The materials used up by the battleships could more easily be reused for armored vehicles on land, making therefore more armroed divissions ready in a shorter time, combined with the scratch building of landingcraft and ships needed to transport all this to Europe. By early 1942, the Operation Torch could already be done, saving about half a year. Perhaps even Overlord could be done some six to twelve months earlier, if the needed number materiel and men was in time for such an operation.
 

Sior

Banned
The real problems facing the British Army in WW2 were penny pinching in the inter war years.
Older Generals not being pensioned off early to allow new ideas to grow, Fuller was the British Officer who gave the Germans the idea of Blitzkrieg, but WW1 retreads ignored him and politicians didn’t want the cost.
No national service in the inter war years, only a volunteer territorial army, so no readily available trained back up for losses.
Bomber command creaming off the better educated man power that should have been the officer core of the army.
North Africa could have been over before America was in the war if politicians had not interfered with the commanders in the field and detached a third of the force to Greece.
By the time the Americans finally showed up British/Commonwealth troops had been fighting ON THEIR OWN for 3 years and were war weary, if the Americans had been fighting as long then they may have been less gung ho and full of shit!
 
1) better tactics destroy Rommel in the Cauldron in May/June '42, letting the Brits take all of Italian North Africa.

2) After taking Sicily, instead of trying to attack Italy up the toe of the boot, take e.g. Corsica and/or Sardinia so the Italian invasion can happen north of Rome, cutting the Axis forces in two.

3) push long range fighters. E.g. P51 Mustang with Merlins.

4) Have the US develop workable superchargers so an Allison engine in a P51 is actually competent against a German plane, e.g.

5) Fix the US torpedo problem. The problems were very quickly found out and it was really only bureaucratic ass-covering that stopped the fixes from happening for, what, 18 months!?

6) get escort carriers in operation a LOT faster.

7) pry more long range bombers out of Harris's hands, and hand them to Coastal Command, to cover the Atlantic better and earlier.



One of the problems of the Italian campaign was the insistence on not landing beyond air cover. Long legged fighter planes would extend that a lot. If North Africa is British (Libya) or neutral (Vichy Algeria and Tunis) by e.g. July '42, Sicily might be taken by December '42. Invasion north of Rome by mid-'43; Dragoon-equivalent in south of France at the end of '43. Also, if the Allies hold (much) of Italy earlier, they can funnel a LOT more supplies into Tito in Yugoslavia. Maybe even send some armour in to help take and hold cities, etc. If the Allies have boots on the ground in Yugoslavia, would Romania (and Hungary?) switch sides, once they saw which way the wind was blowing? Romania was a reluctant Nazi ally in the first place, and getting them to switch sides should be possible - if it doesn't look like suicide.

More and earlier long range fighters in the Pacific would help a lot, too.


A handful of escort carriers with modern planes in the Med would be really helpful for the Italian campaign (although that might not be possible with my accelerated schedule).

A handful of escort carriers in the middle of the Atlantic covering the Gap would be HUGE.
 
Top