Operation Sledgehammer goes ahead

Let's say that theres a greater sense of urgency in the Allied command and the Allies abandon Operation Torch and instead attempt a landing in Europe.

Does this have any chance of success and if it fails what are the reprecussions.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Let's say that theres a greater sense of urgency in the Allied command and the Allies abandon Operation Torch and instead attempt a landing in Europe.

Does this have any chance of success and if it fails what are the reprecussions.

Invading Europe much before they did would be disasterous. We either haven't had Dieppe, or it has been to soon to digest the lessons learned. Without any clue on how to conduct such an invasion against a pretty determined (Of course, assuming you mean Normandy the Atlantic Wall wasn't built yet, but still...) enemy. The first real amphibious invasion done by US forces was Guadalcanal, but the Germans have the capability to make any invasion that much more costly. The Allied strategy of invading relatively weak areas to test out their theories was a good one. Despite what Stalin wanted.
 
Invading Europe much before they did would be disasterous. We either haven't had Dieppe, or it has been to soon to digest the lessons learned. Without any clue on how to conduct such an invasion against a pretty determined (Of course, assuming you mean Normandy the Atlantic Wall wasn't built yet, but still...) enemy. The first real amphibious invasion done by US forces was Guadalcanal, but the Germans have the capability to make any invasion that much more costly. The Allied strategy of invading relatively weak areas to test out their theories was a good one. Despite what Stalin wanted.

What would be the after effects of it failing in that case?
 
A hasty invasion was considered in the event Soviet collapse seemed imminent but was rejected, not because it was concluded that the Allied forces landing would be destroyed but because it probably wouldn't even force the Germans to bring in reinforcements.

A failed landing with heavy British casualties probably means the end of Churchill and a probable British settlement with Hitler, which could force the US out of the war in turn.
 
A failed landing with heavy British casualties probably means the end of Churchill and a probable British settlement with Hitler, which could force the US out of the war in turn.
I wonder how does this statement sit with you moking me in every "Unthinkable"-related thread for asking is Allies were ready to take massive casualities (any kind of victory over USSR at any point past 1941 would require millions of Americans and Britons being killed)? Do you mean to say that Britons weren't ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands fighting Hitler but would be glad to sacrifice millions fighting Soviets?
 
CanadianGoose, in all honesty I don't know what you're talking about or what you've been reading as I made no comments about the British(or Americans) fighting the Soviets.

If, after four years of war, the British lose hundreds of thousands of men in a failed invasion attempt, with attendant air, naval and economic losses then Churchill is finished. As it was, in OTL, the British were dissolving units every month once D-Day was complete as they had run out of manpower. Now add a catastrophe involving more British dead or captured than in the entire war and it is hard to imagine the British continuing as an effective player in the war.

The US could stay in the war if you can explain how the US does so without any bases on British territory. Perhaps in French North Africa but I doubt it. Egypt had been developed for years to supply a substantial force but the French colonies had not.

And once Stalin realizes that, at best, his last ally is going to be on vacation for a few years building up logistics and supply lines I doubt he has much hope of continuing. I'm not going to go off on fantasies like the US invading Norway successfully from Halifax and Boston or Stalin permitting large forces of Americans on Soviet territory.

In this situation the only chance for the Allies to win is a merciless American nuclear bombardment.:(
 
Let's say that theres a greater sense of urgency in the Allied command and the Allies abandon Operation Torch and instead attempt a landing in Europe.

Does this have any chance of success and if it fails what are the reprecussions.

Churchill haunted with memories of Gallipoli wanted any invasion to be a successful one. Neither he, nor his Chief of Staff Brooke would have agreed to an invasion in '42 - instead of North Africa.
In the unlikely event that the US was able to insist e.g. we'll send our forces to the Pacific. It would be IMO a disaster.
In a situation like this, the equation is can we resupply our forces faster than the enemy can resupply his.
In June '44 the answer was yes, with some help from planting false inteligence on the enemy. But in '42, in France no; even in Torch the Germans were able to get forces into Tunisia to cause the Allies severe problems.
Consequences, French resistance decimated, it would be Dieppe times 10, 50, ??
Careers would be lost, would the British government fall? Maybe. It would be some time before offensive action could be undertaken - meanwhile Monty is stuck in Egypt!
 
Top