Earliest possible Allied victory?

[Orko]

With a PoD after December 1941, i.e. with the USSR and the USA already in the war, what is the earliest possible timing for the Allies to win the war? Assuming that the axis powers continue to act much like OTL and it all depends on what the Allies decide to do differently.

 

[jmc247]

You have to define the end state of what constitutes victory. Unconditional surrender for instance is a maximalist victory objective that most nations at war do not seek when attempting to win.

 

[Orko]

I do mean unconditional surrender. In other words, what would it take for the Allies to achieve the same outcomes to the war as OTL, but faster?

 

[Look More Closely Later]

With a PoD after December 1941, i.e. with the USSR and the USA already in the war, what is the earliest possible timing for the Allies to win the war? Assuming that the axis powers continue to act much like OTL and it all depends on what the Allies decide to do differently.

Problem is unless you throw in random events revealing information the Allies never had in the original timeline at a date - e.g. the Allies discovering Rommel in North Africa was reading their radio traffic and the Bonner Feller's reports earlier than in the original timeline - most of what they did they did for reasons which seemed rational to them at the time.
Well: reveal information or have people be replaced due to non original timeline death/illness/other, but again non original timeline replacements due to random events aren't initiating points of departure based on Allied decisions.

 

[Dolnikan]

The big difficulty is that in many ways, we're talking about two wars that have to be won semi-independently of each other. So things that lead to an earlier victory in the Pacific won't have much influence on Europe and vice versa. However, the war with Japan can be dramatically shortened if the Allies show just a little bit more competence in some of their battles and have a bit of luck. With even minor failures in the Japanese attacks their access to the oil from the DEI is massively reduced leading to an earlier collapse. It however is too late to solve the torpedo issues.

Cheating a little could get things changing right at the start of December and somehow have the Americans be aware of what's going down and managing to ambush the retreating Japanese carriers and to sink/damage a couple of them. That would have a huge impact.

For the European war, I think that the biggest thing would be at the Eastern front. Perhaps the Germans could get overambitious in another attack, leading to a major part of their forces being cut off by counteroffensives?

 

[tomo pauk]

WAllies landing in 1943 in France instead in Sicily should've cut the ww2 by a good deal.

 

[TDM]

WAllies landing in 1943 in France instead in Sicily should've cut the ww2 by a good deal.

Maybe but the Italian campaign also taught some lessons for 1944, although the Italian campaign came with it's own issues as well!

Plus in 1943 the Germans are one year less drained, and the German troops tied up in Italy 1943 onwards are going to be somewhere if they're not there.

Ultimately even with their disadvantages the Germans fought very well on the defensive and mounting an invasion of Europe is no easy feat, I can't see any massive trick the allies missed to win faster

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Have MacArthur fall down the stairs or get struck by lightning. It's been said a thousand times, but it gets repeated for good reason. Seize the initiative at Anzio. Conduct the Trinity Test over an Axis city instead of the New Mexico desert. Give the US Navy reliable torpedoes from the start.

 

[tomo pauk]

Maybe but the Italian campaign also taught some lessons for 1944, although teh Italian campaign came with it's own issue as well!

Plus in 1943 the Germans are one year less drained, and the German troops tied up in Italy 1943 onwards are going to be somewhere if they're not there.

Ultimately even with their disadvantages the Germans fought very well on the defensive and mounting an invasion of Europe is no easy feat, I can't see any massive trick the allies missed to win faster

Nobody said that 1943 invasion will be perfect, just like the German defences in 1943 France were not perfect. With invasion of France, WAllies pull the rug under German defences, there is no narrow and hilly Italy for WAllies to slog through. Air situation is as perfect as possible, too, with RAF and FC bringing even the short range Typhoons and Spitfires to the game.

 

[TDM]

Nobody said that 1943 invasion will be perfect, just like the German defences in 1943 France were not perfect. With invasion of France, WAllies pull the rug under German defences, there is no narrow and hilly Italy for WAllies to slog through. Air situation is as perfect as possible, too, with RAF and FC bringing even the short range Typhoons and Spitfires to the game.

Thing is all the things that would be good in France 1943 are better in France 1944, and there's the lessons of Italy learned as well. Not just in the mechanics of seaborne landings, but IMO more importantly just working together!

I agree the terrain made Italy a slog, but that's relevant for fighting in Italy not France*. And a lot of other relevent things happen between 9th July 1943 and 6th June 1944

But I guess the question is when you said "should've cut the ww2 by a good deal". what kind of scale are you thinking?



*or rather its relevent for comparing Italy to France in 1943 but not France 43 to France 44 (although it's not like there was no defensive terrain between Normandy and the Rhine, and defensive terrain is all very well but you still have to have the skill to make best use of it)

 

[mial42]

Have MacArthur fall down the stairs or get struck by lightning. It's been said a thousand times, but it gets repeated for good reason. Seize the initiative at Anzio. Conduct the Trinity Test over an Axis city instead of the New Mexico desert. Give the US Navy reliable torpedoes from the start.

This is a terrible idea. The whole thing about the Trinity Test was that... it was a test. They didn't know it would work! So if you drop it on an Axis city, and it doesn't work, congratulations! You've just given Germany or Japan a nearly-fully functioning atomic bomb! Not to mention you can't examine what's left to figure out what you did wrong. Maybe they can't do anything with it... but the US didn't know that.

 

[mattep74]

With a PoD after December 1941, i.e. with the USSR and the USA already in the war, what is the earliest possible timing for the Allies to win the war? Assuming that the axis powers continue to act much like OTL and it all depends on what the Allies decide to do differently.

If the allies go for opening the entrance to Antwerp and not try to outflank the Westwall, would that shorten the war?

 

[Bougnas]

Ultimately even with their disadvantages the Germans fought very well on the defensive and mounting an invasion of Europe is no easy feat, I can't see any massive trick the allies missed to win faster

If the allies go for opening the entrance to Antwerp and not try to outflank the Westwall, would that shorten the war?

It would require the Wallies to be less methodical and faster, but there were several occasions in 1944 France where the retreating German forces could have been completely surrounded and destroyed instead of regularly escaping (Falaise, Seine crossings). That would have eliminated much of the remaining German forces in Northern France and would have further increased the chances of cutting off the German force in the Scheldt, forcing them to withdraw.

The combined effects of this would likely have allowed Antwerp to be reopened way earlier, would have made further progress in the Netherlands easier and would have made German counterattacks much harder. Possibly saving several weeks.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

This is a terrible idea. The whole thing about the Trinity Test was that... it was a test. They didn't know it would work! So if you drop it on an Axis city, and it doesn't work, congratulations! You've just given Germany or Japan a nearly-fully functioning atomic bomb! Not to mention you can't examine what's left to figure out what you did wrong. Maybe they can't do anything with it... but the US didn't know that.

Little Boy was tested over Hiroshima. The Trinity test was conducted with a implosion-based plutonium warhead, akin to "Fat Man," which was dropped over Nagasaki. Little Boy used uranium-235. It had not been tested when dropped.

Also even if that weren't the case, the question is what would shorten the war, not what would seem like a good idea at the time. Dropping the Gadget over Hiroshima would definitely shorten the war. If it turned out to be a dud, that does not mean the Japanese would just be able to nuke the allies. Aside from the problems of it not working, there'd be the matter of a relatively heavy bomb surviving such a fall (about 10,000 m/ over 30,000 ft) in a functional state or at least one that allows reverse engineering. That's before we get into the issues Japan would have trying to deliver a nuke to its target even if ASB gave them a warhead.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thing is all the things that would be good in France 1943 are better in France 1944, and there's the lessons of Italy learned as well. Not just in the mechanics of seaborne landings, but IMO more importantly just working together!

1943 is better than 1944, since it can shorten the ww2 by many months.
The necessary parts of invasion of Sicily worked together.

I agree the terrain made Italy a slog, but that's relevant for fighting in Italy not France*. And a lot of other relevent things happen between 9th July 1943 and 6th June 1944

*or rather its relevent for comparing Italy to France in 1943 but not France 43 to France 44 (although it's not like there was no defensive terrain between Normandy and the Rhine, and defensive terrain is all very well but you still have to have the skill to make best use of it)

Terrain comparison is very relevant, since terrain in NW France favors the attacker that has aerial superiority/supremacy and numerical supremacy on the ground - unlike the terrain in Italy.

But I guess the question is when you said "should've cut the ww2 by a good deal". what kind of scale are you thinking?

I'd wager that ww2 in Europe might end by some time of summer/autumn of 1944.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

WAllies landing in 1943 in France instead in Sicily should've cut the ww2 by a good deal.

I have a feeling the odds of failure were way, way higher in 1943 then 1944.

 

[TDM]

It would require the Wallies to be less methodical and faster, but there were several occasions in 1944 France where the retreating German forces could have been completely surrounded and destroyed instead of regularly escaping (Falaise, Seine crossings). That would have eliminated much of the remaining German forces in Northern France and would have further increased the chances of cutting off the German force in the Scheldt, forcing them to withdraw.

The combined effects of this would likely have allowed Antwerp to be reopened way earlier, would have made further progress in the Netherlands easier and would have made German counterattacks much harder. Possibly saving several weeks.

In perfect hindsight yeah maybe there are times the allies could have pushed faster and were over cautious, but equally there are also times when they pushed too fast and were less than cautious and suffered for it (Market Garden).

Generally speaking anything that involves "Oh they could just have done X", is probably missing some fact on the ground (in this case most likely constraints on logistical supply) since the allied commanders weren't interesting in prolonging the war, and if they could have completely surrounded and destroyed the retreating Germans in France, I'm pretty sure they would had realised this was a good idea and done so.

I agree getting Antwerp back would be good thing, but the Germans knew this too, and even OTL they made it hard fighting. That said deciding not to do Market garden could have helped get to Antwerp faster, but again hindsight is 20:20 and you don't know which faster less methodical idea is best until you do them.

 

[TDM]

1943 is better than 1944, since it can shorten the ww2 by many months.
The necessary parts of invasion of Sicily worked together.

I meant the actual situation in France (and the ongoing war in general) 1943 vs. 1944? Not weather it's better in abstract to shorten the war.

Also Scilly and Italy actually highlighted some issues with the allies working together, issues that by June 1944 had to an extant been ironed out largely because of the months of experience working together in Italy.

Terrain comparison is very relevant, since terrain in NW France favors the attacker that has aerial superiority/supremacy and numerical supremacy on the ground - unlike the terrain in Italy.

In terms of the OP we're comparing France 1943 to France 1944 not France 1943 to Italy 1943.

I'd wager that ww2 in Europe might end by some time of summer/autumn of 1944.

I think that's pretty optimistic

 

[tomo pauk]

I meant the actual situation in France (and teh ongoing war general) 1943 vs. 1944? No weather it better in abstract to shorten the war.

German defenses were weaker inn 1943 than in 1944.
I don't uderstand the 2nd sentence.

Also Scilly and Italy actually highlighted some issues with the allies working together, issues that by June 1944 had to an extant been ironed out largely because of the months of experience working together in Italy.

As above - nobody expects that the 1943 invasion of France will be flawless. It is the year of it that makes it great.

In terms of the OP we're comparing France 1943 to France 1944 not France 1943 to Italy 1943.

I was comparing the terrain of France and terrain of Italy. Italy was the defender's delight.

I think that's pretty optimistic

Okay.

 

[TDM]

German defenses were weaker inn 1943 than in 1944.

were they? And I don't just mean how many tonnes of concrete were poured into the Atlantic wall, I'm talking German forces and Germany in general. Similarly are allied forces and resources as ready for d-day scale landing and subsequent offensive in 1943 as they were in 1944? D-day was significantly larger than Sicily after all. You mentioned air superiority was allied air superiorly better in 1943 or 1944?

I don't uderstand the 2nd sentence.

You seemed to saying 1943 was better because it would mean a shorter war. I was saying that rathe based on assumption

As above - nobody expects that the 1943 invasion of France will be flawless. It is the year of it that makes it great.



I was comparing the terrain of France and terrain of Italy. Italy was the defender's delight.

and no one's saying otherwise, but once again we're not comparing Italy 1943 to France 1943, or even Italy 1943 to France 1944 , we're comparing France 1943 to France 1944.