Montgomery Chosen As Supreme Allied Commander

I don't know if a stronger Overlord was possible in the short term.

IIRC landing craft used for Husky were sent to the Far East for the Burma campaign. If they are retained in Europe then landing more troops in the first wave becomes possible. The early 1944 revisions to the plans only increased the first wave from 6 to 8 RCT/brigades (rather than the 3 to 5 divisions generally quoted). There is probably room for another RCT on both Omaha and Utah if landing craft are available; plus perhaps 1 more brigade on British beaches.

An earlier landing means the beach defences are weaker (both in terms of material and troop numbers), and better weather makes landing easier, leading to deeper penetrations on the first day. In particular a stronger landing on Utah, plus an airborne division landing on the west coast of the Cotentin (as the rearrangement of German deployments which prevented it will not yet have happened) will lead to Cherbourg being opened much earlier.

On another note: How will Monty deal with the "logistics kings"? Ike could not put his foot down.

Montgomery had no great problems with his own logistics structure and supplies, (apart from the elusive 'engine problems') and probably had a greater understanding of logistics issues than most from his experience in North Africa.

A faster initial penetration and earlier opening of Cherbourg reduce the logistics issues in any case, and preventing an Army heading off towards the Saar will help further.

The real issues are the interface between the US Ground Forces and Services of Supply, which needs a strong US theatre commander to take action - which Eisenhower never really did - and an early decision to either capture or mask Brest, or carry out Operation Chastity.

There still would have been logistics issues but they would probably have become important after a Rhine crossing rather than earlier.

Would a month have decided anything? Starting Overlord in May vs June does not seem to give much more room for operations.

IIRC the May weather was OK and the June storm which wrecked Mulberry A would not have been significant, as Cherbourg would be open.

As noted above a May landing also sees weaker beach defences as for example 352 Division would not have moved forward.

The key difference is reaching the position to launch a Rhine crossing in early August, not mid-September; longer days and better weather gives an airborne operation a much better chance of success.

After the Ruhr, the target will be Berlin and I cannot see Montgomery stopping at occupation boundaries. When the Germans would give up I don't know, but I can see further German attempts to assassinate Hitler.

No Anvil of course also probably leads to the Allies reaching the Po in the summer of 1944, but delays the rebuilding of French Armies in France.
 
Aber: good points.

However, I believe that May was the mroe optimal time for Overlord. The June weather and the slight "window" 6 June gave Ovrlord more of a surpise than otherwise could have been planned for.

If that initial surpise was not there (in May) I think it might have countered for a lesser defended beach.

That, I think, is speculative, though.

Logistics: I would like to see Monty being Lee's superior. That should have been great joy.

Whether Lee really was as bad as his reputation is a good point. I do believe that his "red tape" was a hindrance to operations, not an enabler.

I fully agree that a Rhine crossing in August would have ended it all in 1944.

That said: how? Soviet forces were still far away.

Ivan.
 
IIRC landing craft used for Husky were sent to the Far East for the Burma campaign. If they are retained in Europe then landing more troops in the first wave becomes possible. The early 1944 revisions to the plans only increased the first wave from 6 to 8 RCT/brigades (rather than the 3 to 5 divisions generally quoted). There is probably room for another RCT on both Omaha and Utah if landing craft are available; plus perhaps 1 more brigade on British beaches.

An earlier landing means the beach defences are weaker (both in terms of material and troop numbers), and better weather makes landing easier, leading to deeper penetrations on the first day. In particular a stronger landing on Utah, plus an airborne division landing on the west coast of the Cotentin (as the rearrangement of German deployments which prevented it will not yet have happened) will lead to Cherbourg being opened much earlier.
I actually started a thread fairly recently abpout more landing craft being available. Apparently between the first and second programmes of landing craft construction they decided to lower the priority on them so there was a gap between them, the thinking went that after the postponement of the landings in 1942 or '43 they could reduce the priority and make up production over a longer timescale but it ended up costing them production. Simply have them not lower the priority and pause between the construction programmes and there's your extra boats.
 
ivanotter said:
A Canadian might still be looked at as "British" in the eyes of the US generals.
Forget it. The U.S. was too dismissive of Canada, & so was Monty. (Monty was bordering on contemptuous.)

Then there's the comparatively small Canadian manpower contribution...
ivanotter said:
Just guessing here. But did they have one with the kind of qualities required as SHAEF? Not just a fighting man, but a leader?
Very, very dubious. The best Canadians were too junior, & the seniors, like McNaughton, just weren't anything like as good as even mediocre Brits or Americans.
ivanotter said:
Starting Overlord in May vs June does not seem to give much more room for operations.
Why did it get delayed OTL? IIRC, there were weather issues. (Yes, I recall the 4-6 June storm.)
ivanotter said:
Would Monty have been going for Berlin?
IMO, there's no question of it. This IMO is part of the reason he couldn't see the need to clear the Scheldt.
 
This discussion is turning a little bit.

Let us assume that Monty is SHAEF, just for now at least.

Let us also assume that he is handling Overlord a bit different.

In essence, he is launching an attack in the North (as should have been done), and the encirclement is successful.

1) How far would he get?
2) Ruhr being occupied in September?
3) Off to Berlin?

IF this would have happened, would the occupation zones still come into play?

Would Churchill just have kept the entire Germany?

Would FDR have been a part of keeping Germany and just telling "good Ol' Joe" to go away?

Has this been discussed before anyone?

Should we elevate it to a separate thread if not?

Ivan
 
Top