The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Not suggesting that ANYTHING like that is happening here. Astrodragon's running a great TL. I just worry a lot. And as others have said, while Husky is now looking OK, what next?
Mainland Italy will look good on paper, Italian diplomats paving the way with promises of an open door once Italy changes sides. I really hope that doesn't go ahead. While there is some operational utility in a 'foothold on the boot', it has little to offer from a strategic viewpoint. There must be flatter places with less infrastructure to invade Europe than that.

Island hop to Thrace?
The coast is hard for axis forces to reach, but striking inland could be equally hard for the allies.

Island hop to Corsica?
South of France and North of Italy become vulnerable, but neither are exactly remote outposts.

Coastal raiding? (reads dangerously like Dieppe)
 
The German Problem with an Alt Husky is very dependent on timing but lets say we use the 43 dates in 42. That means alt Husky jumps off about two weeks after Blue. OTL Avalanche the Germans are fighting in Stalingrad and Novorossisk and the theatre reserves have largely been committed. If the defence of Sicily goes on longer than OTL then the Germans are more and more locked into the drive on the Caucusus and Stalingrad fighting.

The Germans have got themselves into a situation where the defence of Italy is left to the Italians which on paper is ok, just counting divisions/ kit OTL there was a very substantial German force in country. The Italians have 8th army and whatever was not lost in NA which were not available OTL. And that’s a big force.(10+ divisions) which may slow things down in Sicily

Or maybe the Germans have left poor little Italy to face the Avenging Wrath of the Democracies - featuring massive naval and air superiority, endless torrents of artillery fire, really big invulnerable tanks and barbarous colonial subjects with a taste for edged weapons and Rugby, on their ownsome.

Which point of view taken will colour the Italian reaction and there is not a lot the Germans can do about it. We know OTL the Italians surrendered/botched a change of sides in early September (6-8 weeks after Husky), I could see an argument for just about anything from Italy fights on to Italy joins the UN with various varieties of Italian civil war in between.

Again OTL the Germans had ?5-8 mobile division/ division equivalents in Italy in 43 with more arriving/forming. The mobile bit is key all of these except the Fj are Pz/PzGr. The Fj are Luftwaffe and have easy access to trucks for non combat mobility. They can get around quick and disarm Italians, capture Kings etc in a way that a leg infantry division cannot.

At this point Germans have (exc Scandinavia) 22 inf div in the west and 3 Pz, with a couple of regiments/Bde sized formations mobile formations, The Inf Div are a mix of newly raised, static and out from Russia. The Pz Div are just out of Russia and as priority went to the forces for Blue, they are cadre.

The other reserve is the OTL NA forces but they and the minor allies are the theatre reserve for the eastern front and the flank guard for Blue. At some point between mid July and August these will go into the line in the East. If they are not there ( and it will take a while to transfer west anyway) holes will appear, very large holes.

Its an interesting play out but the situation favours the Italians doing something successfully much more than OTL. Worst case allies- Sicily gets hung up on the Etna line until later in the year , too late for an invasion of Italy in 42, Best case for the allies - Italy surrenders/changes sides (from Hitlers point of view I don’t think there is a difference) and the Italian front is north of Florence, possibly north of Venice.

If the Germans throw the forces have into the Sicily fighting, the remnants will stay remnants.
 
The German Problem with an Alt Husky is very dependent on timing but lets say we use the 43 dates in 42. That means alt Husky jumps off about two weeks after Blue. OTL Avalanche the Germans are fighting in Stalingrad and Novorossisk and the theatre reserves have largely been committed. If the defence of Sicily goes on longer than OTL then the Germans are more and more locked into the drive on the Caucusus and Stalingrad fighting.
So whatever Stalin says, the W.Allies will have some effect on the Eastern Front in 1942.

The Germans have got themselves into a situation where the defence of Italy is left to the Italians which on paper is ok, just counting divisions/ kit OTL there was a very substantial German force in country. The Italians have 8th army and whatever was not lost in NA which were not available OTL. And that’s a big force.(10+ divisions) which may slow things down in Sicily
Doesn't this all depend on how easily the axis can get forces across the straits of Messina? It all depends on how much air superiority the Allies get to go with their naval superiority.

Regards

R
 
Gannt

All this assumes a Japanese-level of devotion to The Plan that Hitler simply didn't hold to, not when it meant slapping down "weak upstart decadent democracies". I would think it would be more a matter of simply entraining and strategically redeploying X # of follow-on formations meant for Blue. It's not like every first ranked division was in the initial assault wave. Or that "leg infantry" have to walk all the way from Russia to Italy:eek: rather than exploit the European rail net.

I've read TLs where the Allies sweep up Italy all the way to the Po River before German defense lines can develop. Unfortunately, if they are studied too closely, they are seen to "make it work" by allowing the Allies a swift blitzkrieg up the rough, hilly, and even mountainous terrain of the Italian mainland against resistance that always seems to conveniently melt away at just the right time. In fact, for the Germans, in these TLs they essentially "freeze" for the better part of a full month while the Allies show an excellence for co-ordination and drive on a level never seen IOTL until the Persian Gulf War of 1991!:rolleyes:

Remember how long it took Monty to crawl up from Reggio to link up with the beachhead at Salerno? That isn't a criticism of his leadership or his men. Only that in advancing up that narrow toe it took very little in the way of defensive troops to slow the British down for quite some time, considering the balance of forces involved.

I also wonder about how much of a fight the Italians, and ONLY the Italians, would put up in Sicily. Very anti-Fascist local populations, ready to exhort the Italian soldiery to desert rather than take their chances with the enemy. Besides, once the British get established in force on the island and have broken out from their landing zones, their unit training and firepower will quickly begin to shred the (unsupported?) Italian Army corps by corps. When the average Italian soldier sees this happening, and thinks to himself: "HEY!? What are we still fighting for? The GERMANS surrendered long before this in the last war!":mad:

A friend of mine had as his father an Italian reconnaissance pilot who took his unarmed aircraft to scout the Husky landings. When he reported his sightings, the voice on the radio said: "Yeah, we know about that." His father was shocked at the indifference of the high command. He flew back to his base, and confronted his CO, chewing HIM out for sending him on a seemingly suicidal mission that no one cared whether it succeeded or not. He then stated that the war was obviously over and he was leaving! The squadron CO replied: "Salvatore, good luck!":) Salvatore eventually became an Italian Royalist Army military policeman working for the Allies guarding German POWs.:D

I can't see the Italians fighting so much further in WWII for Benny the Moose than the Germans did for the Kaiser in WWI. At least, in terms of what was left of their country. The Imperial Germans surrendered before the first enemy soldier stepped on German soil. Could we expect the Italian people, with a history of 2700 years, be less mature than the Germans, and fight futilely for a longer time?

I can't help but think that Sicily, as an Italian show only, could turn into a 1942 Falkland Islands. At least on the ground. The enemy fights for awhile, retreats, fights again, keeps falling back, losing men to desertion and quick surrenders by local units, with morale continuing to collapse until perhaps half the garrison surrenders en masse at the very end without ever even firing a shot!

Opinions?
 
Last edited:
So whatever Stalin says, the W.Allies will have some effect on the Eastern Front in 1942.

Regards

R

The Western Allies could have sicced Starfleet and the entire United Federation of Planets against Hitler and Stalin would have accused us of conspiring with "imperialist space aliens".:p:rolleyes:
 
Mainland Italy will look good on paper, Italian diplomats paving the way with promises of an open door once Italy changes sides. I really hope that doesn't go ahead. While there is some operational utility in a 'foothold on the boot', it has little to offer from a strategic viewpoint. There must be flatter places with less (0) infrastructure to invade Europe than that.(1)

Island hop to Thrace?
The coast is hard for axis forces to reach, but striking inland could be equally hard for the allies.(2)

Island hop to Corsica?
South of France and North of Italy become vulnerable, but neither are exactly remote outposts.(3)

Coastal raiding? (reads dangerously like Dieppe)(4)

0) I think you meant MORE?

1) You'd be surprised at how few places there are in Europe that are accessible to the sea, without narrow constricting straits involved, no mud flats, no rough or mountainous terrain, have major ports available in the area, are close to Allied LOCs and large-scale bases (including bases of supply), and have no super-heavy (and frankly overbuilt) fortifications.

2) There is a rail line running from the central rail network in Germany through Thrace (Salonica). Excellent LOC and base of supply for the Germans.

3) After Husky? Take Sardinia, then go to Corsica? Makes garrisoning the whole of Italy AND Southern France a strategic nightmare for the Germans. At least, until the British commit themselves. Personally, I'd suggest Southern France as a goal for 1942-43, but that's just my opinion.

4) Oh dear. I just thought of something. The Canadians were manic about getting into battle against the Germans before the "Johnny-come-lately" Americans. Hence, Dieppe.:(:(:( I wonder if the Canadians will demand some high profile operation BEFORE Husky. Or perhaps, that the first wave in at Husky is an all Canadian affair?:cool:
 
Last edited:
Well personally I don’t think Hitler would have launched Blue precisely so he would have reserves available for a landing in the west but the logic of leaving Italy to the Italians also works and not attacking in the east in 42 is admitting you have lost the war, the rest is just a matter of when and to whom.

The redeployment problem is that except the OTL NA forces and minor allies everything else is engaged from the start and depending on the exact date either heavily engaged around Voronez or to all intents and purposes pursuing a defeated, broken enemy. The problem is not the pursuit, though it will be when the Russians stop retreating, its keeping contact with the mobile forces and securing the strategic objective - the oil - while covering the left flank from the soviet forces around Moscow which will arrive at some point. Without the oil ? Why attack at all.

There would be an appreciable time delay to get to a railhead and move west which will increase as the advance goes on, most of the Soviet track is N/S and will only compound the security problem. I think at one point OTL the Germans had a battalion covering 120 miles of front and there is a logistical issue with timetabling which would have been managed but does assume the cooperation of the Italian railway system.

But if you pull out formations well to get the OTL 43 level of mobile forces in italy means taking out half the mobile divs involved in Blue and a good infantry division. That kills it dead. OTL only 1st SS (less its equipment) was transferred the rest of the forces was in Italy or on the way anyway.

And when do they arrive - when the allies land in Sicily? maybe by the time an alt Avalanche is being launched, if on the fall of Sicily/Avalanche after an Italian surrender so who will disarm the Italian army? Three Kampfgruppe?

Reggio is a bit misleading as the Germans had blown every bridge and culvert in the way but its good defensive terrain and I would not expect a rapid advance unless the Germans were trying to fight their way down through the Italians.

I would agree that an Italian Surrender is a real possibility and unless the Germans can disarm them in a matter of hours a goodly proportion of the Italian army will be moving to assume defensive positions in the alps.
 
Something will happen in Italy. Some people will be surprised. Some wont :D:D

One thing to bear in mind. NA went quite differently than OTL. This had good and bad points for the British. The Italians consider they were beaten by numbers and equipment )not exactly true), and being stabbed in the back by th eperfidious French :) The Germans think the same.

So the Italian Generals are confident that that can hold Sicily)or at least force the Allies to pay dearly for it), and defend Italy with Italian troops (now they have a lot of the army back from Russia). There wasn't time in TTL for Hitler to decide he had to step in to defend Italy as the Italians couldnt, so that decision will take longer and a bit more thought.

The only realy German formation in Italy is LF X (in their anti-shipping role), No army formations at the moment.

However not all of Italy is convinced, and there are (as in OTL) a body of men ready to make a deal. There is a difference this time; the British are in complete control of any meetings and negotiations, so expect something a bit more subtle and efficient from OTL...

Now I just have to find a way to keep Mark Clark away from Italy...:eek:
 
Can you have him die from complications resulting from an enlarged ego? :D

I wouldn't worry about Mark Clark. Too few American troops to make a difference here regardless of who their commander is. Also, too many better American commanders still available at this time who haven't been kicked upstairs and removed to the UK for Bolero/Roundup/Overlord. Men who are still between Mark Clark and senior command. Specifically, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton. Clark isn't the problem right now. He may be nothing to brag about as a leader, but he isn't outrageously incompetent either.

The real danger at this time is that as far as I can recall, there is an American general out there in position to command US field forces in the Med ahead of ALL of these flag officers, except for Ike's noncombat command. I speak, of course, of Major General Lloyd Fredendall.:eek: The only American flag officer I can think of who makes British General Neil Ritchie look like Julius Caesar.:rolleyes:

AFAIK, ITTL, Fredendall hasn't managed to get himself relieved yet, as he hasn't DONE anything yet.
 
Last edited:
Yes, unfortunately based on OTL Torch, Fredenhall is the most likely commander.

Fortunately hes going to be under some competant generals, will be interesting to see how he screws it up this time around...
 
Yes, unfortunately based on OTL Torch, Fredenhall is the most likely commander.

Fortunately hes going to be under some competant generals, will be interesting to see how he screws it up this time around...

He'll find a way. Anyone who gets bounced out of West Point three years running (actually, West Point refused to even consider his third appointment) and STILL manages a successful military career based on little more than internal army political connections...:mad: But what he did as an active field commander wasn't a tithe as bad as the damage he inflicted on the US Army as a training officer afterwards.

Having this guy choke to death on his morning Cheerios[SIZE=-4](tm)[/SIZE] would improve the quality of US troops coming out of boot camp, infantry training schools, and unit training formations by leaps-and-bounds. They still won't be up to British standards, of course (but then, who is?:)). But at least they won't show the lack of tactical sense they did OTL. And maybe they will have a better grasp of armored tactical concepts, as well.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
0) I think you meant MORE?

1) You'd be surprised at how few places there are in Europe that are accessible to the sea, without narrow constricting straits involved, no mud flats, no rough or mountainous terrain, have major ports available in the area, are close to Allied LOCs and large-scale bases (including bases of supply), and have no super-heavy (and frankly overbuilt) fortifications.

2) There is a rail line running from the central rail network in Germany through Thrace (Salonica). Excellent LOC and base of supply for the Germans.

3) After Husky? Take Sardinia, then go to Corsica? Makes garrisoning the whole of Italy AND Southern France a strategic nightmare for the Germans. At least, until the British commit themselves. Personally, I'd suggest Southern France as a goal for 1942-43, but that's just my opinion.

4) Oh dear. I just thought of something. The Canadians were manic about getting into battle against the Germans before the "Johnny-come-lately" Americans. Hence, Dieppe.:(:(:( I wonder if the Canadians will demand some high profile operation BEFORE Husky. Or perhaps, that the first wave in at Husky is an all Canadian affair?:cool:
0) Less is more. The landing beach is a bottleneck for logistics, so the worse the infrastructure available to your enemy, the better.

1) poorly defended major ports to capture intact would be a bonus, but high/defensible ground close to the landing area can work in your favour if you reach it and reinforce it before the enemy can. Here the poor infrastructure can be overcome by light forces and air drops. There are few good invasion beaches, true. Lack of bristling defences is hard to find unless strategic surprise is complete.

2) While the rail line does offer good logistic support, it is easily negated and hard to re-route if repairing. All the same, I don't think anywhere is ideal to make landfall on the continent with such an unpleasant reception awaiting them.

3) Which is why I really like the idea of further island gains to put pressure over an extended range of coastline. The same holds true for islands leading north into the AEgean. Perhaps other islands (Norwegian around Smøla say) too?

wiki/List_of_islands_of_Norway_by_area

Bømlo was actively involved in the Shetland bus operation. Could an invasion sneak in piecemeal?
 
Last edited:
0) Less is more. The landing beach is a bottleneck for logistics, so the worse the infrastructure available to your enemy, the better.(A)

1) poorly defended major ports to capture intact would be a bonus, but high/defensible ground close to the landing area can work in your favour if you reach it and reinforce it before the enemy can. Here the poor infrastructure can be overcome by light forces and air drops. There are few good invasion beaches, true. Lack of bristling defences is hard to find unless strategic surprise is complete.(B)

2) While the rail line does offer good logistic support, it is easily negated and hard to re-route if repairing. All the same, I don't think anywhere is ideal to make landfall on the continent with such an unpleasant reception awaiting them.(C)

3) Which is why I really like the idea of further island gains to put pressure over an extended range of coastline. The same holds true for islands leading north into the Aegean. Perhaps other islands (Norwegian around Smøla say) too?

wiki/List_of_islands_of_Norway_by_area

Bømlo was actively involved in the Shetland bus operation. Could an invasion sneak in piecemeal?(D)

A) Against the Italian Army alone, I am more than confident that the British Army can chew their asses out royal. A war of attrition outside the landing zones that the Italians will have no stomach for. When did the Italians EVER kick British ass without the help of the German Army? There is no making up for lack of first-grade equipment, training, and leadership. Numbers alone simply won't do it.

I see the Italian Army in Sicily representing the greatest of logistical impediments for the British Army in terms of handling all those POWs, and that's about it. Mind, until Syracuse is secured, repaired, and made fully operational, that impediment will be very serious. At least the British will have the partisans to help (Mafia). The US Army can take the lead on that score.

B) If there was one thing about Hitler's interference in military affairs in the West that was actually very successful, it was his obsession over hardening the ports.

I wouldn't worry too much about needing defensible terrain immediately outside the landing areas. Defensive battleship and cruiser gunfire support had a tendency to do grand scale urban renewal on any panzers foolish enough to try "driving the enemy into the sea". Frex, what happened to the Herman Goering Panzers in Sicily, the German counterattacks at Salerno and later at Anzio, the 21st Panzer on D-Day against the British (?) landing beaches, and the German Seventh Army at Avranches.

C) Not sure of your meaning here? That rail line running down north to south through Yugoslavia into Greece is in pretty rough terrain. The Germans proved that they were lightening quick at repairing rail link breaks, except when done by massed heavy bombers in daylight. Those breaks could take weeks or months to fix.

Ironically, the best two places for landing zones are as OTL. The sites of Overlord and Dragoon. They knew what they were doing. Southern France does have a few downsides unfortunately. You can't exploit into Italy through the French-Italian Alps, it represents the long way through France to Germany, and the terrain in Southern France is the worst in the country, much of it either mountainous (along Switzerland and Spain), broken, or rough. But defensively, if the Germans decide to do their all, it is also the easiest to hold.

D) Norway? No. Just NO. Just put it out of your mind. Even if the Japanese were to surrender in the next update, and the whole of the heavy units of the Royal Navy, US Pacific Fleet, and US Marine Corps were sent to the North Sea, they couldn't make Norway work as anything but an elaborate, and very costly diversion.

Logistically totally impossible. The ports along the North Sea simply cannot support an invasion to liberate such a rough and mountainous country. Especially considering the garrison strength in country. Norway, like the Channel Islands, made for a very good self-sustaining POW camp. We didn't even have to feed them. Granted, they were still able to interdict the Murmansk Convoys and use the port of Narvik for Swedish iron ore, but it wasn't worth going after Norway for that.

Why is all this true? He who rules Oslo and Copenhagen rules both Denmark and Norway. Those two major ports, along with the Norwegian rail network (leading up to Trondheim) allow easy support and reinforcement of the heavily overloaded (too many troops considering the remote nature of an Allied threat to liberate Norway) captive country of Norway.
 
Last edited:
Don't we have second Kharkov (Timoshenko's offensive) coming up in the east? Perhaps the Russians might mention they have something planned (although not too specific on the time or place) so the W.Allies can attack at the same time?

IIRC this offensive was another reason for the delay in the drive to the Caucasus/Stalingrad.

Regards

R
 
Don't we have second Kharkov (Timoshenko's offensive) coming up in the east? Perhaps the Russians might mention they have something planned (although not too specific on the time or place) so the W.Allies can attack at the same time?

IIRC this offensive was another reason for the delay in the drive to the Caucasus/Stalingrad.

Regards

R

It delayed it, but it also made it a lot easier.
 
I'd really like to see Lucien Truscott given faster promotion, perhaps in Bradley's place, but it doesn't seem likely in this scenario. He was a fine commander and a good man, but lacked the PR abilities of Macarthur, Patton and Clark.
 
I'd really like to see Lucien Truscott given faster promotion, perhaps in Bradley's place, but it doesn't seem likely in this scenario. He was a fine commander and a good man, but lacked the PR abilities of Macarthur, Patton and Clark.

Damn. There is the man to take over all US Army training commands. Him and Alexander Patch.
 
Well if the one called F is in the running for the sled dog under the Limey with the Irish name and the French Priest he would only be commanding a B and have to go to M, where he would faint at the site of a really cool deep deep whole City of bunkers, get invalided home and job jobbed.

Looking at a powered up brigadier in the first instance TR jr? The name adds a lot of credibility and he is around the right rank.

The East is busy really all year with a small spring pause for mud (Sevastopol, Kerch, Kharkov in May etc etc.). I dont know of any particular reason for launching alt Husky in July except OTL it was and that puts it just after the start of Blue and makes it easier to track things (a lot of OOB data is published as at the start of Blue for example).

If launched earlier it probably makes no difference except whole formations were withdrawn from the east in April/May (2 of the 3 pz div in the west OTL July 42 were in the east earlier) and they probably left their kit behind for Blue.
 
Well if the one called F is in the running for the sled dog under the Limey with the Irish name and the French Priest:confused::confused::confused: he would only be commanding a B (Brigade?:confused:) and have to go to M,:confused: where he would faint at the site of a really cool deep deep whole City of bunkers,:confused: get invalided home:confused: and job jobbed.:confused:

WTF???:confused: Spell it out please. I HATE word games.

Looking at a powered up brigadier in the first instance TR jr? The name adds a lot of credibility and he is around the right rank.

Not in very good health though...

The East is busy really all year with a small spring pause for mud (Sevastopol, Kerch, Kharkov in May etc etc.). I dont know of any particular reason for launching alt Husky in July except OTL it was and that puts it just after the start of Blue and makes it easier to track things (a lot of OOB data is published as at the start of Blue for example).

Would the Allies really know German plans in the East this well and this far in advance?

If launched earlier it probably makes no difference except whole formations were withdrawn from the east in April/May (2 of the 3 pz div in the west OTL July 42 were in the east earlier) and they probably left their kit behind for Blue.

What about the early spring weather if Husky were to be done in April? Won't all that wetness be a problem?
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top