WI Allies invade through Greece?

Interesting. So I've learned a lot of reasons not to do, mainly regarding the terrain, but at the same time the idea that Bulgaria and Romania would switch to the Western allies' sphere is a huge boost to the idea of the offensive. I say this because if the United States were more anti-communist and looking at the post-war world where they will have to deal with Stalin, then an offensive through Greece would make the most sense. It would give the Western allies a bulwark against communist surge over Europe.

So back to more questions-

-Would the terrain represent insurmountable difficulty? Could the allies win?
-How would Stalin react? I get the idea he'd be more angry than happy.
-Where the Dardanelles straits opened up at this point? If they were not, all the more reason for a Balkan invasion.
 
Meanwhile which other offensives will the Western Allies be unable to launch due to the lack the men and material?

Based on German forces in the Balkans OTL plus the more rugged terrain I'm not sure the need would be for much less than the force used to invade France and issues of supply and air support would be even worse.

I would expect, if anything, the advance to be slower and I seriously doubt the Bulgarian or Romanian armies are able to do much against the Germans. More likely the Germans disarm them as they did Italian and Hungarian units in similar situations.
 
This campaign wouldn't go anywhere... Marhsal first of all would have to die or be fired; he was not sending American troops into Greece PERIOD

Its slightly worse mirror of the Italian campaign; bad terrain, malaria, long periods where the weather closes the battlefield, roads turn into bottlenecks which are easily defended by German economy of force missions and small infantry battlegroups and even FARTHER from any meaningful objective which can win the war

Fighting in Greece severely reduces the main advantages of the allied armies (mobility, firepower, numerical superiority and air interdiction) its not that they couldn't do it... but why on earth would they want to

that's because normandy countryside was a walk over....:eek:
 
Good, as they say, God...

Utah and Omaha beaches were very nearly another Dieppe. The DD tanks and the airborn on St Mere l'Eglise were disasters.

Warning to all Clinton fans - it was the British and Canadian troops on Gold, Juno and Sword beaches, who established the viable bridgehead.

Dismayingly, US forces sank the breakwaters for Mulberry 'A' in too deep water, so the storms destroyed it. Mulberry 'B', the British one, worked impeccably and supported the troops till they reached Antwerp and the Rhine. My father was with Inland Water Transport and Beach (Royal Engineers) so he got to know the uncomfortable truth. Unfortunately, the fighting round Caen and in the Bocage was anything but a walkover - northwestern Caen was effectively a lot of bombed rubble.

Anyway, there's my twopennorth...
 
Utah rapidly won the first major victories of the invasion, isolating and then seizing the entire Contentin Penninsula including Cherbourg.

Omaha had the poor luck to run into one of the few front line German units on the spot and paid the price for it.
 
that's because normandy countryside was a walk over....:eek:

France had a well developed transportation net... there where good war winning objectives to be taken once broken out... the entente had plenty of experience at Salonika in WW1 to know this would be a terrible idea where 20 first class and desperately needed French and British divisions enjoyed the dubious distinction of being thrashed and boxed in by the freaking Bulgarian army

(Kome I promise thats the last time I bash the Bulgarian army :p)
 
BlairWitch749

Had being the appropriate word after the allied bombing campaign.;)

Steve


France had a well developed transportation net... there where good war winning objectives to be taken once broken out... the entente had plenty of experience at Salonika in WW1 to know this would be a terrible idea where 20 first class and desperately needed French and British divisions enjoyed the dubious distinction of being thrashed and boxed in by the freaking Bulgarian army

(Kome I promise thats the last time I bash the Bulgarian army :p)
 
stevep, not to mention the logistical concerns.

Operation Overlord was launched from bases a few dozen miles away in the UK into France, another modern nation. An invasion of comparable size forced to operate out of Egypt or other British colonies is going to suffer from vastly inferior support facilities, much longer supply lines.

The issue of air support is going to be important if it has to be based from Egypt, Cyprus or carriers.

Grimm

That would be the single biggest problem and why I suggested possibly after the occupation of S Italy which had a lot of air bases that could be used. The infrastructure in Egypt is fairly hefty for military support and with ports in S Italy as well that should be viable.

Steve
 
What? He DARES to bash the Bulgarian Army?:eek:


That's it! I'm reporting him and getting him kicked and banned and disemboweled and forced to date Ozzy Osbourne's daughter!:mad:


Rally to me, stevep!



stevep, the problem being that you first have to build all the air bases in Italy and you may still lack the coverage provided from England while Egypt is not in the same logistical league as England, with the air bases much farther from Greece than the ones in England were from Normandy.
 
Interesting. So I've learned a lot of reasons not to do, mainly regarding the terrain, but at the same time the idea that Bulgaria and Romania would switch to the Western allies' sphere is a huge boost to the idea of the offensive. I say this because if the United States were more anti-communist and looking at the post-war world where they will have to deal with Stalin, then an offensive through Greece would make the most sense. It would give the Western allies a bulwark against communist surge over Europe.

So back to more questions-

-Would the terrain represent insurmountable difficulty? Could the allies win?
-How would Stalin react? I get the idea he'd be more angry than happy.
-Where the Dardanelles straits opened up at this point? If they were not, all the more reason for a Balkan invasion.

Well keep in mind this might be an area where Germans actually have air superiority over the allies. Thats a major force multiplier right there.

And the allied troops are going to have to face all of Army Group E (and assuming they manage a breakout Army Group F afterwords maybe). Plus a ton of Italian divisions.

Also whatever troops Hungary still has and two Romanian field armies if they dont defect. Which would spell more trouble for Bulgaria, since they would have to repel attacks from Romania, Army Group F attacking from Yugoslavia and Army Group E attacking from Greece and Italians attacking from Albania. This is they type of situation that has been bred into the nation to avoid at all costs (see my rant on the first page).

So looks like my prediction on Bulgaria was a bit hasty (it was before i took a look at how much troops Romania had left, quite more than i expected).

What? He DARES to bash the Bulgarian Army?:eek:


That's it! I'm reporting him and getting him kicked and banned and disemboweled and forced to date Ozzy Osbourne's daughter!:mad:


Rally to me, stevep!
Say what? :confused:

(Kome I promise thats the last time I bash the Bulgarian army :p)
=D
 
Hmm, Bulgaria may only defect in favour of the Soviets as Russia is largely responsible of Bulgaria’s very existence and there was a lot of goodwill between the two nations even after 1917. This was the main reason Bulgaria didn’t send an army to the eastern front…Because it would either mutiny before they boarded the troop-trains or defect once they got to the front. The Germans were quite well aware of this and were happy just to have a nominally friendly Bulgaria not causing them problems.

On the other hand if stiffened by German troops, I see the Bulgarians fighting the Anglo-Americans in Greece, at this stage they haven’t been worn down by years of fighting, and have proved willing to fight at least the British in the past.

People here seem to have ignored the effect this will have on Italy. Without a landing there II Duce will remain in power, and Fascist Italy will still be a creatable ally not the rump puppet state it was after Mussolini was rescued.
 
Hmm, Bulgaria may only defect in favour of the Soviets as Russia is largely responsible of Bulgaria’s very existence and there was a lot of goodwill between the two nations even after 1917. This was the main reason Bulgaria didn’t send an army to the eastern front…Because it would either mutiny before they boarded the troop-trains or defect once they got to the front. The Germans were quite well aware of this and were happy just to have a nominally friendly Bulgaria not causing them problems.

On the other hand if stiffened by German troops, I see the Bulgarians fighting the Anglo-Americans in Greece, at this stage they haven’t been worn down by years of fighting, and have proved willing to fight at least the British in the past.

People here seem to have ignored the effect this will have on Italy. Without a landing there II Duce will remain in power, and Fascist Italy will still be a creatable ally not the rump puppet state it was after Mussolini was rescued.
I personally think Bulgaria while Pro-Russian was also pragmatic (as my rant shows). But i think we can agree if no defections happen for the Western Allies their going to be screwed, even without Bulgaria heading down to fight the Allies.

Italy would give considerable forces to the Axis effort so pretty much i think an invasion into Greece can now officially be classified as not having much of a chance as a cheap lighter on the Russian front.

I wonder which British generals would have pushed for this most? They probably are going to be sacked soon.
 
Top