Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[Look More Closely Later]

Yes the Anglo Americans conducted a major bombing offensive against principally the Germans, and to a lesser extent the Italians and Romanians. And these bombing campaigns did require the Axis powers to divert resources, especially fighters and anti aircraft artillery from the eastern front. But despite what the “Bomber Barons “ believed, the bombing offensive was never going to end the war in Europe. And while the aircrews did suffer some of the highest casualty rates of the Allied forces, their total casualties for the entire war, just about equaled those of the foot soldiers during a major battle in the East. What ever those of us who are from the West think, WWII in Europe was won by the Soviets in a prolonged slug feast with the Germans. The Anglo Americans, took the British way of war, pay someone else to do the heavy lifting and take the majority of the casualties. While using your technological superiority, to fight the war with as few casualties as possible, hence the massive spending on bombers, artillery and armour, that the Anglo Americans engaged in.

RR.

Look: I'm not sure how to explain the force multiplier effect of artillery and aircraft, and that the Germans on the Eastern front were actually hurt (and Stalin's armies' work made easier) by the diversion of all those artillery and aircraft to protect their industrial heartlands.
(And nevermind the loss of at least some of Italy's military forces and agricultural production to the Axis, when Ike ordered the Allied Armies across the Straits of Messina into the Italian mainland.)

So instead I'm going to toddle off and write some pony stuff (which is what I should be doing anyway ) instead of getting stuck in a long and frustrating (at least for me) argument here.

(edited for typing errors & autocorrect)
And I wish you a Happy impending New Year (or at least I do if you're on a calendar where that happens in the next few days...)

 

[JamesHunter]

Hello? Tell me how can DDay happen before 1944? And Italy? They were fighting out, just too bad Italy was mountains glue together.

Could maybe bypass Italy, take Scilly, Sardinia,Corsica and then land in the south of France.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Could maybe bypass Italy, take Scilly, Sardinia,Corsica and then land in the south of France.

Italy still has to be dealt with at some point. Instead of landing in the toe of Italy in September 1943, land at Anzio and drive straight to Rome for a knock out blow before the Germans can take over. Get Mussolini to Britain and into the Tower of London before there's a chance of a rescue.

 

[marathag]

What ever those of us who are from the West think, WWII in Europe was won by the Soviets in a prolonged slug feast with the Germans.

Every 88mm sited around an Axis city for AAA was one 88mm not firing at Soviet Tanks in the East. Lend Lease Studebaker trucks allowed the Soviets to move, and factories could be dedicated for making AFVs, rather than trucks.
It was a team effort.

 

[marathag]

. While using your technological superiority, to fight the war with as few casualties as possible, hence the massive spending on bombers, artillery and armour, that the Anglo Americans engaged in

US policy was never to send a Man to do a job that a bullet or bomb could do better.
That's fighting smarter.

 

[Sqdn19]

Italy still has to be dealt with at some point. Instead of landing in the toe of Italy in September 1943, land at Anzio and drive straight to Rome for a knock out blow before the Germans can flood take over. Get Mussolini to Britain and into the Tower of London before there's a chance of a rescue.

In hindsight I agree.
But from their perspective is that realistic? How much of Italy could be taken before the Germans move in? Also, does the 8th feel competent enough to take on the Wehrmacht in mainland Europe when their supply line involves no shipping?

If the IGS feels they can’t be sure of an easy win against the Germans in mainland Italy, the attraction of fighting in a part of Italy where the Germans still have to be resupplied by sea and Commonwealth air & seapower can be brought to bear probably still exists.

Hopefully Rhodes builds competency so such a brave move can be attempted. And Sardinia’s & Sicily’s threats to the flanks can be mitigated

 

[foresterab]

Should have had people speaking Maori instead.

I haven’t ran across Māori use yet but the Canadians did have an organized unit of artillery observers who used Cree especially in Europe.

 

[Winged-One]

Hello? Tell me how can DDay happen before 1944? And Italy? They were fighting out, just too bad Italy was mountains glue together.

Skip all but Sicily for Italy (and since NA is done you can do it in '42 hopefully) and use the sealift for an invasion of France.

 

[CB13]

Skip all but Sicily for Italy (and since NA is done you can do it in '42 hopefully) and use the sealift for an invasion of France.

I will defer to those that know more than me, but although massive American production lines have started churning out materials, I have a hard time envisioning there being sufficient time to produce the required ships, tanks, artillery, small arms,.much less training the required for US Troops to attack across the channel a full year early. Attack into Southern France from the Med in January - February (so 6 months early)? Maybe. But due to weather in the Channel it kind of seems like the options are "Summer of 1943" or "Summer of 1944". Of note, I always thought that the South of France option was interesting as upon securing a large enough base of operations (away from Hitler's Atlantic Wall and logistics hubs), you can immediately recruit and train Frenchmen to contribute fighting men which fits with Allied philosophy of minimizing own casualties. It also then forces the Germans to split the Luftwaffe to divide itself for a 3rd front, which would impact air operations in the USSR in a major way. Lastly (and we talk a ton on this board about just how critical logistics are), just to support a German Army in Southern France they have to utilize triple (?) the fuel and rolling stock than they would to support troops in Calais, Normandy, Cherbourg, etc. Obviously, supply chain for the Allies is similarly impacted, but they have the shipping and fuel to pull it off after the invasion of Sicily is complete (which would've been critical to harden many new allied troops). Side note: You could keep "Patton's Fake Army" across from Calais to keep German reserves from rushing South.

 

[pjmidd]

I will defer to those that know more than me, but although massive American production lines have started churning out materials, I have a hard time envisioning there being sufficient time to produce the required ships, tanks, artillery, small arms,.much less training the required for US Troops to attack across the channel a full year early. Attack into Southern France from the Med in January - February (so 6 months early)? Maybe. But due to weather in the Channel it kind of seems like the options are "Summer of 1943" or "Summer of 1944". Of note, I always thought that the South of France option was interesting as upon securing a large enough base of operations (away from Hitler's Atlantic Wall and logistics hubs), you can immediately recruit and train Frenchmen to contribute fighting men which fits with Allied philosophy of minimizing own casualties. It also then forces the Germans to split the Luftwaffe to divide itself for a 3rd front, which would impact air operations in the USSR in a major way. Lastly (and we talk a ton on this board about just how critical logistics are), just to support a German Army in Southern France they have to utilize triple (?) the fuel and rolling stock than they would to support troops in Calais, Normandy, Cherbourg, etc. Obviously, supply chain for the Allies is similarly impacted, but they have the shipping and fuel to pull it off after the invasion of Sicily is complete (which would've been critical to harden many new allied troops). Side note: You could keep "Patton's Fake Army" across from Calais to keep German reserves from rushing South.

South of France was always a secondary landing, just due to the greater distance from both ports and airfields, greater difficulty in building up stores (England has a very dense rail system so you can use many different ports outside the SE to bring stuff in and use the SE ports purely as a springboard for France) and there is no greater chance of taking an intact port (as well as things like no Pluto for fuel etc). It worked if the Germans were pinned elsewhere but not for an only attack they could concentrate on ( French volunteers would at best only be good for pioneers till 1944).
I agree going to France earlier than OTL is very unlikely, the US just would not have produced the LST's etc in time, the American forces are just not going to be ready and specific training/planning for D-Day was a good years worth of prep. So even deciding in Dec 1941 to go straight for France, you are still missing the summer window for 43 unless all the stars align.

 

[wally]

Not enough ships to do a major landing in France in 1942 and keep it going. If the Eastern Med is successfull then I can see a landing in Sicily in summer of 42. The problem is once Sicily is taken it's an easy move to Mainline Italy and with the UK forces in Med having no other target and the US Army needing to be bleed somewhere there be huge pressure to try it in later 42.

Hopefully with more of the NEI holding there is less need for the ships to do the island hoping to Japan.

 

[marathag]

have a hard time envisioning there being sufficient time to produce the required ships, tanks, artillery, small arms,.much less training the required for US Troops to attack across the channel a full year early.

D-Day 1943 has been hashed out pretty well over the past few years on the Forum, it's very doable.
But IMO, it requires the freezing of Pacific Operations to work.
That's a tradeoff that should have been done, ending the War in Europe sooner

 

[MattII]

D-Day 1943 has been hashed out pretty well over the past few years on the Forum, it's very doable.
But IMO, it requires the freezing of Pacific Operations to work.
That's a tradeoff that should have been done, ending the War in Europe sooner

Well here the Pacific theatre won't be nearly as significant.

 

[kelgar04]

Given they way things are going now I except that a lot more will be held compared to OTL with the Japanese Bleeding a lot more for their gains they makes aside from in the Philippines. I won’t be surprised if there is some major criticism levelled against the US military by the American Preaa given the Commonwealth and the Dutch are beating ten shades out of the Japanese compared to OTL and stuff is going the same for the US Military.

Heck however you slice it US influence in the east in military terms maybe limited to the Pacific with commonwealth and Dutch officers taking over in Indonesia and other places.

Also the idiot MacArthur will probably told to go and find a long stand as well.

 

[marathag]

Well here the Pacific theatre won't be nearly as significant.

True that.

 

[MattII]

Given they way things are going now I except that a lot more will be held compared to OTL with the Japanese Bleeding a lot more for their gains they makes aside from in the Philippines. I won’t be surprised if there is some major criticism levelled against the US military by the American Preaa given the Commonwealth and the Dutch are beating ten shades out of the Japanese compared to OTL and stuff is going the same for the US Military.

Heck however you slice it US influence in the east in military terms maybe limited to the Pacific with commonwealth and Dutch officers taking over in Indonesia and other places.

Things won't get any better either (on the official level at least) when the news comes out that their torpedoes are total screwballs. Still, at least that problem should be solved a bit sooner.

 

[Sqdn19]

D-Day 1943 has been hashed out pretty well over the past few years on the Forum, it's very doable.
But IMO, it requires the freezing of Pacific Operations to work.
That's a tradeoff that should have been done, ending the War in Europe sooner

Interesting. One presumes its into the Frisian Islands?

In all honestly why haven’t we seen (barring “Great Deeds” in APOD), a real Fortitude North? We know from Op Claymore marines could be landed in Norway from spring ‘41 onwards. We know the Austrian house painter sent large forces to Norway, and Tirpitz pinned the Home Fleet in for much of the war.
Provided an airfield could be seized on the first few days, it seems to me to be a “fringe operation” that would be worth its cost. Even if only the north could be taken.
Barring giving Churchill’s long suffering handler a nervous breakdown should he hear about it, what have I missed as to why it wouldn’t work?

 

[MattII]

Well with Crete in Allied hands, and probably Rhodes down the line, Operation Zeppelin is now a lot more plausible.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Every 88mm sited around an Axis city for AAA was one 88mm not firing at Soviet Tanks in the East. Lend Lease Studebaker trucks allowed the Soviets to move, and factories could be dedicated for making AFVs, rather than trucks.
It was a team effort.

Exactly - From memory 1/3 of all German Artillery created and half of all Artillery ammo was used by the AAA units defending Germany and something in the region of 1 million men to operate them

Add in the aircraft held back and lost defending Germany and then add in the damage/lost production and it quickly adds up to an incredible amount of men and equipment that might otherwise have been used against he soviets!

I recall that the Ruhr campaign in 1943 cost the Germans more tanks in lost production than were lost on the Eastern front during the same period.

 

[alspug]

It is a well known fact that the German industry was unable to keep up with the rigors of the Eastern Front and defend the Fatherland.

The sheer scale of the FLak defences in Germany was and is insane. 9,000 Heavy guns and 30,000 light guns. So this means 2250 Heavy (88mm plus Batteries) and around 5,000 Light Batteries. The vehicles needed to keep supplies moving to these batteries would have made a huge difference to the supply issues of the German Army.

The use of Ground Attack aircraft in the Eastern Front would have been much more risky with 30,000 light calibre guns of 20 to 37mm in use. As for the Anti-Tank defences I would happily send any Pz IV or III that is damaged off to be turned into a SPG of either mobile Flak or mobile AT guns. Heck take a Pz III chassis and use two damaged to make a single slightly longer Chassis with an 88mm in a 20 degree traverse mounting and you have a deadly tank killer.

The quad 20mm and single/twin 3.7cm Flak Guns even mounted on trucks would improve defences in a major way.

The 8.8cm can also be used as regular Artillery very effectively at a high rate of fire over a considerable distance.