Can Britain and Soviet Union defeat the Axis alone?

Yes, because there's a difference between "they land somewhere they can actually advance from", and "the world's biggest amphibious failure".


Except that the Cotentin Peninsula is much narrower than Bretagne, meaning it's far easier to bottle up an invasion force landing on its tip.
 
Except that the Cotentin Peninsula is much narrower than Bretagne, meaning it's far easier to bottle up an invasion force landing on its tip.

A definite reason to pay attention to where the Allies land.

:eek:

I'm not defending Cherbourg over Bretagne, just that it definitely matters if they pick the wrong one.
 
A definite reason to pay attention to where the Allies land.

:eek:

I'm not defending Cherbourg over Bretagne, just that it definitely matters if they pick the wrong one.

completely agree.

therefor, I've decided to rewrite this:

Large swathes of the French interior are now controlled by partisans. The British land near the French port of Brest, whose garrison had not received more than a trickle of supplies for over two months. After bloody figting, they take the harbour, but it would take them many weeks to get it operational again.

A simmilar operation is conducted by the Free French, with British support, in southern France.

into this

Large swathes of the French interior are now controlled by partisans. Although all ports are heavily fortified, their garrisons are receiving no more than a trickle of supplies.

The British land near one of these ports and, after bloody figting, manage to take it. The Germans attempt to adress the situation by stripping most of the coastal garrsions and trying to send them towards the British to contain them and possibily push them back. With total allied air superiority and their logisitical system in shambles, movement is heavily restricted and few units manage to reach the enemy and form a coherent defensive line.

However, by relocating the garrisons, the nazis had left those ports wide-open to attack, and it is exactly what the British do. Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk are stormed by Allied forces, paving the way for a swift advance into Belgium and the port of Antwerp.

Another landing, this time in southern France, is conducted by the Free French, with British support. The landing there goes relatively smooth, but the advance up the Rhone is constantly delayed by a skillful German rearguard action.

With their empire collapsing all around them and Hitler dead, remaining Nazi leaders either kill themselves, try to flee or, together with the Wehrmacht, surrender to the Allies and Soviets in the summer of 1946.

Better ?
 
I think so, at a glance.

I'm admittedly not convinced that the British (and allies) can muster the forces to take on Germany and Italy without US involvement.

Yes, there's a lot out there besides Britain itself - but it's not like that wasn't drawn on OTL.
 
Magnum said:
I was thinking OTL troopps for Torch minus the Americans with a bit more Canadians, and without the landings in Morroco. Maybe also with the Oran landing switched to Tunisia

Why is this so unbelievable ?
Because I don't see any conceivable need for it. Why does CIGS do this, rather than simply attach them to Eighth Army?:confused:
Magnum said:
There is also the possibility that Australia, thanks to American stuff, raises extra divisions to defend itself. And/Or maybe Indian units are sent there as well.
Well, no, since even with actual American troops to help defend Oz, there were calls for Oz infantry to be held or called back.
Magnum said:
My thinking was that, if part of the ATL-Torch forces landed in Tunisia, there would be no "Tunisgrad" where hundreds of thousands of Germans and Italians are trapped. This means that the Axis has way more stuff to defend Sicilly with.
Since, AFAIK, the troops in Tunis did not come from Sicily, I'm not seeing the connection. Nor would the Brits allow the Axis in Tunis to escape. As a matter of fact, the Brits went out of their way to prevent it--& it didn't happen, to the disappointment of not a few MTB sailors.
Magnum said:
Since the British feel the need to do something, a landing in Sardinia fits perfectly with the age-old British strategy of peripheral strikes.
No argument.
Magnum said:
With no Americans to fight, Japan would have a lot more forces available as well
Well, no. They were busy fighting Chinese, in the main. Or defending (in Japan's mind, at least) against potential Sov invasion.
Magnum said:
while there would probably be way more Indian units fighting for the British, I don't think their numbers would be so great as to equal the OTL American contribution
It appears the U.S. contribution isn't as large as most believe. I'll also wager India could, at need, provide easily ten times the manpower of the U.S.
Magnum said:
with no Americans, the prospect of switching sides and evicting the Germans (who might have more units inside Italy than OTL) would be a lot less appealing to the Italians.
What is the magic of American involvement, here?:confused: More to the point, if there are more Germans in Italy, that's good for the Allies, & an even better reason not to invade the damn country.:rolleyes:
Magnum said:
With a greater concentration of Axis forces on the mainland and less men at his disposal
And where is this "greater concentration" coming from, exactly?:confused:
Magnum said:
I din't think these were important enough to mention. Plus, it's a shorter distance from Britain to the Ruhr or Berlin than from Sicilly, meaning any bombers based there would more likely strike targets in southern Europe.
Fair points.
Magnum said:
Maybe he doesn't get to decide.
Decide? No. You're talking like he gets no say at all.
Magnum said:
They reached Normandy undetected OTL.
Crossing the Channel is an extremely different proposition from sailing all the way around to the damn Bay of Biscay.:rolleyes:
Magnum said:
By now, the entire Nazi war machine is a wreck.
So much for the "increased concentrations", then.
Magnum said:
maybe the Mullbery harbours get butterflied
Reasonable, but not without reason. I don't see one.
Magnum said:
the British don't have the sealift capability to support a large army on the beaches.
But they do have enough to transport the force to Brest?:confused::confused: Also, what makes you think the Germans didn't have it wired for demolition, just like Cherbourg? Just like every one of the Channel ports, in fact?:rolleyes:
Magnum said:
If I said they initially land at Cherbourg, would it make any difference to the story ?
Not really. It would be just slightly less impossible.
 
Because I don't see any conceivable need for it. Why does CIGS do this, rather than simply attach them to Eighth Army?:confused:

For the same reasons they launched Torch OTL, minus the need to have American troops fighting in time for the elections.



Well, no, since even with actual American troops to help defend Oz, there were calls for Oz infantry to be held or called back.

And here, more weapons and supplies from the US allows them to recruit more divisions at home.

Since, AFAIK, the troops in Tunis did not come from Sicily, I'm not seeing the connection. Nor would the Brits allow the Axis in Tunis to escape. As a matter of fact, the Brits went out of their way to prevent it--& it didn't happen, to the disappointment of not a few MTB sailors.
If alt-Torch succesfully lands in Eastern Algeria and Tunisia , than the Germans cannot send troops into Tunisia to be captured later, can they ?


Well, no. They were busy fighting Chinese, in the main. Or defending (in Japan's mind, at least) against potential Sov invasion.

They still fought the Chinese OTL, and still held a lot of the Kwantung Army in reserve. A lot of the units that fought the Americans can be sent against the British.

It appears the U.S. contribution isn't as large as most believe. I'll also wager India could, at need, provide easily ten times the manpower of the U.S.
IF the US can and does provides enough supplies for them, and IF Winston is willing to have them recruited. Those are very big ifs.


What is the magic of American involvement, here?:confused: More to the point, if there are more Germans in Italy, that's good for the Allies, & an even better reason not to invade the damn country.:rolleyes:
The magic is that, to leading Italian fascists, they no longer have to defend against this unstopable juggernaught, but against a country their bosses in Germany had defeated on the mainland before. Hence why I figured Benny has a shot at keeping his job a little while longer.

Also, they don't invade the place until most Germans had left.

And where is this "greater concentration" coming from, exactly?:confused:
From the fact that Germany hasn't lost hundreds of thousands in Tunisia and tens of thousands in Italy. It also musn't garrison the Balkans to the same extent they had to after the Italians switched, since Italian units are still there. They also suffer somewhat less in the east. Not much overall, but, coupled with no American units in Britain (only partialy compensated by more Indians), and you could reasonably argue alt-Overlord could have been postponed.


Crossing the Channel is an extremely different proposition from sailing all the way around to the damn Bay of Biscay.:rolleyes:
Have you looked at a map ? It's almost the same distance from Plymouth to either Cherbourg or Brest. I think you're confusing it with Bordeaux.

So much for the "increased concentrations", then.
You're talking about two different points in time.


Also, what makes you think the Germans didn't have it wired for demolition, just like Cherbourg? Just like every one of the Channel ports, in fact?:rolleyes:
They did, hence why it took the British weeks to get it back up and running.
 
Magnum said:
For the same reasons they launched Torch OTL, minus the need to have American troops fighting in time for the elections.
:rolleyes: The obvious difference being, the Americans weren't going to subordinate themselves to Britain, while the Commonwealth forces already did.
Magnum said:
And here, more weapons and supplies from the US allows them to recruit more divisions at home.
As said, it's not about weapons & supplies, it's about available manpower. Where's it coming from, when it wasn't there even when the U.S., with actual troops present, helped defend?
Magnum said:
If alt-Torch succesfully lands in Eastern Algeria and Tunisia , than the Germans cannot send troops into Tunisia to be captured later, can they ?
You haven't persuaded me that's going to happen. Neither does this mean Sicily is more heavily defended: just because they aren't in Tunisia, it doesn't follow they end up in Sicily, as opposed to France or the SU, or Norway, instead.:rolleyes:
Magnum said:
They still fought the Chinese OTL, and still held a lot of the Kwantung Army in reserve. A lot of the units that fought the Americans can be sent against the British.
Can be. Not will be.
Magnum said:
IF the US can and does provides enough supplies for them, and IF Winston is willing to have them recruited. Those are very big ifs.
The last is, perhaps, tho I expect he'd prefer colonial Indians to, say, French. IMO the first two aren't an issue: U.S. capacity is well enough to supply as many as the Brits can recruit; it's all about paying for the gear.
Magnum said:
defend against this unstopable juggernaught
The same one that had their asses handed to them at Pearl Harbor & Kasserine?:rolleyes:
Magnum said:
Also, they don't invade the place until most Germans had left.
Hmmm...kind of like Cherbourg, IIRC. That went so well...:rolleyes:
Magnum said:
Germany hasn't lost hundreds of thousands in Tunisia
Conceded.
Magnum said:
and tens of thousands in Italy
As opposed to hundreds of thousands tied up pacifying the country from partisans & defending against MTB & codo raids?:confused:

BTW, this means Britain is building up supplies for invasion of France much quicker.
Magnum said:
It also musn't garrison the Balkans to the same extent they had to after the Italians switched, since Italian units are still there.
Until the Italians do change sides, & I have real doubts they won't anyhow...
Magnum said:
no American units in Britain (only partialy compensated by more Indians)
And more French territorials, so more headaches for the Germans, not least the prospect of Neptune & Anvil going off at the same time.
 

trajen777

Banned
Believe that the following would have occurred (as per my past post)
· Lend Lease supplies would have been curtailed (still would have flowed but not like the 400,000 + trucks to Russia)
· Britain air bombing of Germany would have suffered increased losses without USA air force (GB air units would have been massively out gunned in the air) their increasing German production thereby increasing GB air losses.
· The reduction in bombing increased German quality (research centers not Destroyed) and production (disruption of factories, comm., energy sources, etc) not destroyed or disrupted.
So Russian front:
· Russia not as mobile (lacks trucks)
· Russia cannot produce as many weapons as they will have to reallocate a good portion of their production resources to logistics (trucks – jeeps – etc) their by decreasing their fire power at the front (or getting ammunition and troops to the right place) their by taking more causalities at the front.
· See deadlock with a massive attrition advantage to Germans
Western Front:
· GB bombing less impactful so more planes for Germany meaning more loses for GB again meaning less impact on German factories
· GB not able to control air over a Normandy – so no landing or a BAD landing in France
· Stalemate
 
frankly, I've kinda lost track what we are arguing about, anyway.

My main points were these:

1) this scenario is highly unrealistic, since a)the US is bound to join in anyway and b) the japanese are unlikely to just leave them alone in the Phillipines in the first place

2) all this talk of no LL is BS. It would still be in the interest of the US to send stuff to those fighting its enemies

3) regarding the amount of LL, I initially thought it would be more than OTL. However, there are some limiting factors:
a) the level of mobilization of the US economy will be much reduced with the country not at war
b) Roosvelt would still want to have his own army equiped as well, and wouldn't ship off everything produced
Given this, LL could maybe be somewhat bigger, yet not by much

4) Japanese pressure on Britain would be much bigger than OTL

5) Britain and its allies do not, IMHO, have the capacity to execute Overlord in 1944, and maybe not even in the summer of 1945, instead opting for peripheral strikes against isolated targets

6) Germany probably does better on the Eastern Front

Given these, I figured the war might end somewhere in late 1946, and later revised that to early-to-mid 1946. While we can argue specifics untill the end of times, I think these main points are pretty reasonable.
 
1) this scenario is highly unrealistic, since a)the US is bound to join in anyway and b) the japanese are unlikely to just leave them alone in the Phillipines in the first place

The premise is that the US Congress wouldn't declare war on Japan just to liberate British and Dutch colonies from the Japanese.

Mark Stille was arguing that Congress wouldn't declare war in this case.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/authors/Mark_Stille


Is it in the interest of the Germans and Japanese (and USA) to be agressive and force incidents or would they all back off????

Once could argue that with the Battle of Britain won and the Germans stopped before Moscow and Lend Lease going to both Britain and the USSR the compelling need for direct USA entry is gone.

The USA could do:
1) Massive Lend Lease, at least OTL or greater
2) Encourage volunteers, especially trained pilots to go to the flying tigers or RAF (give notice that such people are more likely for promotion)
3) Continue the mlitary buildup as OTL.

Then no American has to be drafted to die and less post war entanglments and a huge navy between the USA and any future enemies.
 
Magnum said:
3) regarding the amount of LL, I initially thought it would be more than OTL. However, there are some limiting factors:
a) the level of mobilization of the US economy will be much reduced with the country not at war
b) Roosvelt would still want to have his own army equiped as well, and wouldn't ship off everything produced
Given this, LL could maybe be somewhat bigger, yet not by much
Except, not being at war, U.S. demand for rifles, arty, tanks, & a/c is dramatically reduced: the U.S. Army at the time was IIRC under 200,000 men. With the U.S. not actually at war, small numbers of P-38s, Mustangs (probably not "P-51", but maybe P-45 or something), & F4Us, maybe a few hundred B-24s & a few hundred M4s: in short, less armor than a single fighting army would want in North Africa, & fewer bombers by far than were needed to hammer U-boats in the Atlantic. Not to mention all the shipping that isn't tied up, nor all the LCs that aren't, either.

Yes, mobilization isn't as great, but Brit demand is still large, & the U.S. is exiting a depression: the total mobilization was needed to cope with the U.S. being at war, also; since U.S. industry is effectively supplying only (about) 70% as much materiel TTL...
Magnum said:
2) all this talk of no LL is BS. It would still be in the interest of the US to send stuff to those fighting its enemies

4) Japanese pressure on Britain would be much bigger than OTL

5) Britain and its allies do not, IMHO, have the capacity to execute Overlord in 1944, and maybe not even in the summer of 1945, instead opting for peripheral strikes against isolated targets

6) Germany probably does better on the Eastern Front
Magnum said:
I think these main points are pretty reasonable.
Except as noted, I'd say you're mostly right.
Magnum said:
a)the US is bound to join in anyway and b) the japanese are unlikely to just leave them alone in the Phillipines in the first place
This, at bottom, is the key. Since b) is true, for reasons having damn all to do with Congress, a) becomes true by default, even if Hitler pulls all U-boats out of the Atlantic or something equally lunatic (& even for him, that would be:eek::p). Japan attacked as much for inter-service politics as for the oil embargo. Hitler believed war with the U.S. was going to come eventually.

That, plus FDR's belief the U.S. needed to actively aid Britain, means the OTL outcome is likely. Even without FDR, you need to drastically change Japan's military-naval rivalry to change the OTL outcome--or much more adroit U.S. diplomacy....:rolleyes:
 
Top